Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 7 February.

Mr. Speaker: As all the Second Reading Bills have blocking motions with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL (By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL (By Order)

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Public Expenditure

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the public spending planning total for 1991–92.

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the public spending planning totals for 1991–92.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): None, Sir.

Mr. O'Hara: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the Confederation of British Industry has been joined in its call for better training to eliminate the rigidities in our work force by the Employment Institute, the TUC and even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Why are the Government ignoring the experts and planning real cuts in the Department of Employment budget in 1993–94?

Mr. Mellor: The recent CBI survey showed that three quarters of those asked were intending to spend as much on training next year as this year and that 29 per cent. were proposing to increase the money spent on training. The guarantees that the Government have given to various groups on training remain exactly as they were. In setting up training and enterprise councils and investing large sums of money in them, we have broadened the range of training and ensured that it reflects all the new insights into how to make it an effective way to get people into good, productive work.

Mr. Loyden: Is not it a fact that, in the traditions of the former Prime Minister, the present Government listen to no one? The CBI—the friends of the Government—has pointed out that rising unemployment and lack of quality training should be tackled at this stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said, despite those warnings, the Department of Employment is cutting its budget by £1 billion in 1993–94. Is that how the Government treat the question of quality training and unemployment?

Mr. Mellor: The Government have an unprecedented record of success in training. A wide range of training opportunities has been especially successful with young people and with the long-term unemployed, as the figures show only too clearly. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment may have an early opportunity to lay before the House his training plans and when he does so it will be seen that the Government have one of the widest-ranging training plans anywhere in the world.

Mr. Tim Smith: As pressures mount on total public spending as a result of increased social security spending at home and the rising costs of the war in the Gulf, will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm the Government's


commitment to firm control of both public spending and public borrowing as part of their counter-inflationary policy?

Mr. Mellor: The outturn of public expenditure this year is likely to be only 1 per cent. ahead of plans, as was forecast in the autumn statement and, as is known, inflation was not accommodated in the public expenditure settlement in the autumn. So there is absolutely no doubt that, notwithstanding the obvious burdens caused by changes in the economic cycle and the cost of the Gulf, public expenditure is under firm control today and will continue to be so.

Mr. Charles Wardle: If my right hon. and learned Friend were to signal higher public spending, would not the discipline of his fiscal policy be questioned and might not sterling suffer? Would not the CBI do better to advocate radical changes to the habit of granting automatic annual pay increases, if it wishes to encourage profitability and more industrial investment?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question, but in fairness to the CBI it is worth reporting that, in its memorandum on the economic priorities for 1991, it made it clear that tight control of public expenditure is vital. So it has no disagreement with us about that.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Chief Secretary comment on recent reports of an average cut of some 12·5 per cent. in cash terms in the planning total for programmes for training the unemployed this year, just when the numbers are rising? Is not it at best short-sighted and at worst grossly neglectful of the national interest to cut training —and support for industry—at a time of recession?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady is simply asking me to reiterate points that I made earlier—which, of course, I am only too happy to do, unless the hon. Lady is overruled by the shadow Chancellor, who has already grasped the facts.
The CBI survey shows that there is considerable enthusiasm for enhanced training in British industry, which it is itself funding. As I said, the range of training that we provide is as sophisticated and wide ranging as can be found anywhere in the world, and the new TECs initiative has been widely welcomed everywhere except on the Opposition Front Bench.

Income Tax

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax receipts came from the top 10 per cent. of earners in 1979, 1981 and 1990.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The top 10 per cent. of taxpayers paid about 35 per cent. of the total yield of income tax in 1978–79 and 1981–82. That rose to 42 per cent. in 1990–91.

Mr. Bowis: Does not my hon. Friend's answer show that, as the Government's policy of reducing tax rates continues, those who can afford the most will bear the biggest share of the tax burden? Does not it also show that, as tax rates come down, tax revenue goes up, enabling us to afford to care for those in need, pay for better-quality services and cover eventualities and emergencies such as the Gulf war?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend puts the point very well. It is disturbing to find that—in the face of both the strong theoretical case that lower tax rates increase the yield of tax and the practical experience that demonstrates it conclusively—the Labour party still clings remorselessly to the old, faded dogmas of the past. Even as my hon. Friend asked his supplementary question, Labour voices could be heard saying, "There could be more: we could be raising more." I can tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the one way to ensure that more money is not raised from the better off is to increase the high levels of tax levied on them.

Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister admit that, in the first 10 years of this Tory Government, the wealthiest 1 per cent. in Britain have received £26·2 billion in tax cuts, while the poor have been taxed to the hilt? Does not the Minister appreciate that that money should have been spent on hospitals, homes, education, pensions and on getting rid of cardboard city?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman simply has not been listening: if he had, he would have heard that the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers—those who are best off in society—have paid more and more in tax. They have also been allowed to keep more and I do not think that there is anything deplorable about that. The only argument for increasing tax rates for the better-off is based wholly on spite and envy; it is certainly not based on the desirability of increasing the yield to the Government.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister admit that the increase in Treasury revenue might have something to do with the fact that the rich—for example, the chief executives of our companies and industries—may just have been paying themselves more? For the past few years, they have been paying themselves 30 per cent. more each year, while the overwhelming majority in the country have received wage increases of less than 10 per cent.

Mr. Maude: Again we hear the old, faded voices calling for a return to the politics of spite and envy. British industry and British business are now vastly more successful, and have created much more wealth for everyone in society, than was the case before; if managers and executives have played an important part in that, I see nothing wrong with rewarding them.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product manufacturing investment, including leased assets, represented in 1979; and what it represented in 1989.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The figures are 3·6 per cent. in 1979 and 2·8 per cent. in 1989, but this has to be seen against the background of the absolute level of manufacturing investment reaching an all-time high in real terms in the first quarter of 1990.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge that this is a worrying trend, despite the rider to her answer? Does she suggest that British industry will be able to cope when we come out of this appalling recession? If it is unable to cope, what is the balance of payments likely to be?

Mrs. Shephard: It is misleading to concentrate on just one sector, such as manufacturing. In advanced industrial economies all sectors of business are interdependent. The point is that the quality of investment is much better now than it was in the 1970s, when investment decisions were distorted by negative real interest rates and public sector subsidies. That improvement is demonstrated by the fact that profitability is now much higher than it was in the 1970s.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many businesses in Yorkshire are anxiously looking for a reduction in interest rates? Is she also aware, however, that many manufacturing industries are so confident about the future that they are investing millions of pounds in new factories to prevent more imports from being sucked into this country?

Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear that good news about Yorkshire. My hon. Friend well understands that the real threat to manufacturing is inflation and the important point is that interest rates are on course to reduce inflation.

Mr. John Smith: Is not it appalling that, as the economy plunges deeper into recession, the Confederation of British Industry predicts a 16 per cent. fall in investment by manufacturing companies? Why is it that Britain is the only country in the European Community that is suffering from such a disastrous fall in investment in its manufacturing sector? What do the Government intend to do about it?

Mrs. Shephard: The CBI forecast predicts a much sharper fall than do most other forecasts. A number of firms expect investment to drop markedly in 1991. That is to be expected after the record investment levels that were reached in early 1990. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also have noticed from the 3i survey that 80 per cent. of the largest United Kingdom businesses think that business now is much better able to cope.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Labour Government went out in 1979 so did Red Robbo, the Cowley mole and ancient and obsolete trade union practices? During the past 10 years there has been massive investment in the British motor industry by Nissan, Toyota and Honda, among others, leading to new factories, new plant and massive investment—a long-lasting testament to this Government's performance.

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is always an excellent advocate for the car industry. I am glad to be able to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the fourth quarter of 1990 the volume of car exports increased by 37 per cent. compared with the previous year. The figures strikingly illustrate the strong improvement in the performance of the British car industry.

Child Benefit

Mr. Caborn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss child benefit.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission in the near future.

Mr. Caborn: The Conservative party declares that it is the party of the family. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer discuss child benefit with the Equal Opportunities Commission? Child benefit is one of the best fiscal ways to help families. Will the Government also discuss restoring the level of child benefit, in April 1991, to the operational level of April 1987? Will the Minister repudiate the Policy Studies Institute argument that child benefit should be removed from children over the age of five? May we have a Government commitment that the suggestion will not be considered by the Treasury?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to make any comment that might predict the content of the Budget. However, the Government have a two-pronged approach to help families with children through the social security system. There is child benefit, which will be costing £5 billion a year with effect from April with the extra £1 for the eldest child in each family, and special help targeted on poorer families which, at the moment, is £400 million a year extra in real terms and has been so since 1988. The real help for families with children has come from the strong growth in earnings that those families have seen under this Government.

Sir Robert McCrindle: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is said to be under some pressure to restore child tax allowance, presumably in lieu of child benefit, will my hon. Friend remind him that we had the abolition of child tax allowance and transfer to child benefit some years ago because child benefit was thought to be the most effective way of bringing assistance to the maximum number of parents? Will she remind my right hon. Friend, if he is tempted to restore child tax allowance, that although it would no doubt benefit taxpayers, only the maintenance of child benefit and—one hopes—its restoration to its true level will continue to affect all families and all children within them?

Mrs. Shephard: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), my hon. Friend is dangerously close to trying to get me to make some sort of Budget predictions. Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when he said to the House that child benefit is and will remain an important element in the Government's support for the family.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Government give careful consideration to the very real difficulties and problems created for families with young people beyond the age of 19 who are in full-time education? Will the Government reconsider the possibility of restoring child benefit to the end of the academic year in which the child reaches the age of 19 so that the hardship might be relieved?

Mrs. Shephard: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Savings

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates for the savings ratio.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The latest figures show that the personal sector saving ratio was nearly 9 per cent. in the third quarter of 1990.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent news about savings going up. Does he agree that probably the best way to reduce inflationary pressures and interest rates is to encourage further spending—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—further savings? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's new TESSA scheme is probably the best form of saving and probably the best way of encouraging saving in the nation?

Mr. Lamont: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was announcing a novel fiscal principle, but I agree with his revised remarks. A high level of savings is extremely important for countering inflation. Of course, interest rates play an enormous part in balancing savings and investment. As my hon. Friend said, we have introduced a number of measures, including personal equity plans and TESSAs, which have been extremely popular and TESSAs have got off to an excellent start. I note what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot anticipate any further measures that might be in the Budget. I should tell the House that, as forecast in the press, the Budget will be on 19 March.

Mrs. Wise: As it is impossible for anyone to save without an income, what is the Chancellor's message to the 5,000 or so shop workers employed by Lewis's department stores who went to work this morning to find the doors closed for trading until further notice with no guarantee of wages after today?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this about savings?

Mrs. Wise: It is about savings and what comes before saving—eating. What will those shop workers hear from the Government about the state of the economy? What is the Chancellor's message to them?

Mr. Lamont: We have made it clear that we expect unemployment to rise this year, but it remains a fact that Britain has experienced fast growth in employment and that unemployment here is still much lower than the European average.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of fighting inflation is to encourage people to save and that through TESSAs, PEPs and other measures the Treasury has encouraged that development? Will he continue to pursue that policy in the forthcoming Budget to help to press down inflation?

Mr. Lamont: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), I note my hon. Friend's comments, which I assume are early Budget representations.

Ms. Abbott: We listened with much interest to what the Chancellor said about the savings ratio. In giving evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, Sir Jack Hibbert, director of the Central Statistical Office, said that the savings ratio is subject to quite a wide margin of error and that small differences from quarter to quarter should not be regarded as significant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that savings are an important indicator of the economy? If he

wants evidence of the Government's disastrous stewardship of the economy, he should consider the statistics on savings as a percentage of gross domestic product in the past 10 years which have halved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help if the hon. Lady did not look at that bit of paper.

Ms. Abbott: Savings as a proportion of gross domestic product have halved in the past 10 years from 8·2 per cent. under the previous Labour Government to 4·6 per cent. in 1989.

Mr. Lamont: On the hon. Lady's point about the margin of what is statistically significant, the rate has increased from 51/4 per cent. to 9 per cent. in the third quarter of 1990 which is well outside what might be called the margin of error. She made a serious point—that for a long time Britain has been a low-savings country. One reason is that many people borrow to purchase houses. None the less, as my hon. Friends have said, the quite sharp rise in the savings ratio in the recent past has been extremely welcome.

Corporation Tax

Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can give of the amount of corporation tax he will collect from private companies in the current tax year.

Mr. Maude: Corporation tax was estimated in the autumn statement to yield £21·2 billion in 1990–91. I am afraid that information on the yield from private companies is not available.

Mr. Gill: In framing his Budget proposals, will my hon. Friend take into account the desirable and beneficial effect on the economy of allowing successful companies to retain more of their earnings, which would inevitably be spent on research and development, training and more capital investment? Will he further bear it in mind that the ploughed-back profits of private companies are inevitably their only source of capital?

Mr. Maude: Our rates of corporation tax are already exceptionally low, which is helpful to the corporate sector. Our regime for small companies is the most generous in the industrialised world. My hon. Friend will have been encouraged by the survey published by the CBI this week, which shows that a majority of companies expect to maintain or increase expenditure on training and to maintain expenditure on research and development. That is particularly encouraging because in the downturn of the early 1980s those two items were the first to be cut.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was at least partly right. Companies that intend to use their money for investment should be given some incentive. Should not that incentive be a change in the capital allowances? This is a period in which there will be some disinvestment. It falls to the Chancellor to ensure that at such a critical time, investment is maintained as far as possible. The 25 per cent. capital allowances level is nonsense.

Mr. Maude: All the evidence suggests that the 25 per cent. capital writedown reflects the real depreciation in the


value of investment. If anything, it is more generous than the economic assessment of the depreciation. The Opposition have maintained for a long time—and I agree with this—that spending on research and development, and on training is an investment as well, so we should seek to maintain spending there. I am less gloomy than the right hon. Gentleman seems to be and I draw great comfort from the indications in the Confederation of British Industry survey.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend examine the amount raised by corporation tax over the past few years and will he reflect that the vastly increased amounts raised are a result of the successful way in which the Government have run their economic policies and of the great expansion of British industry? Nevertheless, in framing his Budget, will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the successes of the past are now resulting in considerable corporation tax having to be paid at a time of cash flow difficulties and the fact that too much tax paid to the Government will have an effect on investment? Perhaps my hon. Friend and his colleagues will consider reducing the rate of corporation tax for private companies in the forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He would not, of course, expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the very desirable increased profitability of the corporate sector in recent years, which is a reflection of the considerable success of the Government's economic policies.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister's own Department estimates that some £5 billion of tax, including corporation tax, remained uncollected last year. What plans does the Minister have to collect that tax? What proportion of it is corporation tax? What is the Minister going to do to block tax-planning devices, such as those that the Conservative Government introduced in the Finance Act 1981, because the burdens fall on the rest of our citizens?

Mr. Maude: The short point is that the best way to prevent tax avoidance is to have a tax system that is simple and straightforward and has low rates. We have pursued that policy and, especially with corporation tax, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it has resulted in a substantial increase in yield. We are keen at every stage to ensure that loopholes are blocked and that avoidance is prevented. We shall continue to pursue those aims.

Mr. John Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the small business sector, cash flow is becoming very difficult? Will he, therefore, when framing his Budget, consider making the first £1,000 of taxable profit in unincorporated businesses and in businesses paying the small business rate exempt from corporation tax, to help their cash flow?

Mr. Maude: I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend's suggestion and I shall study it with great diligence.

Interest Rates

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current short-term interest rates in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.

Mr. Norman Lamont: At close yesterday, three-month interbank market rates were 13·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 9·2 per cent. in Germany. However, today the Bundesbank has raised its official discount and Lombard rates by a further ½ per cent.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Chancellor agree that any neutral observer hearing those figures for the first time would assume that Germany was the country with oil? After 12 oil-rich years and with sky-high interest rates, sky-high mortgage arrears, sky-high repossessions and sky-high bankruptcies is not it time that the Government broke the habit of the past 12 long years and apologised to the electorate?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman might also have referred to the fact that in the 1980s, the British economy grew faster than the Germany economy. He seemed to leave that out of his comparison between this country and Germany. I appreciate that interest rates are high and that that is causing great difficulties for many businesses. However, the discomfort for the business sector is inevitable if we are to get on top of inflation. Inflation, especially for businesses in the international market which compete against German businesses, matters too. Businesses will not be able to compete against Germany unless we get inflation down to levels far closer to Germany's.

Sir Peter Tapsell: In view of today's raising of the discount rate by the Bundesbank, can we politely make representations to the Bundesbank and the German Government, as I assume we already have, explaining that, while we fully appreciate the great burden on them posed by the economic refurbishment of eastern Germany, we very much hope that they will seek to deal with this by fiscal rather than monetary methods? If they continue to raise their interest rates it will cause considerable problems for partners of theirs in the exchange rate mechanism and, indeed, possibly have an adverse effect on both American and Japanese interest rates as well.

Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend would expect, we have discussed the question of the German deficit and the financial consequences of the unification of Germany both at the G7 meeting and at the recent meeting of EC Finance Ministers. The Germans have made it very clear that they understand our concerns and, most important, that they intend to limit their budget deficit and to make the expenditure and tax adjustments necessary so to do.

Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor agree that if it were widely believed that the Government were on course to defeat inflation the pound would not be so low in its exchange rate bands and the Chancellor would find it much easier to narrow the gap with regard to German interest rates? Are not our present penally high interest rates a premium for the Government's past mistakes?

Mr. Lamont: Exchange rate markets—although I may be overstating the hon. Gentleman's influence—are also influenced by endless calls for premature cuts in interest rates. No, I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I think that it is very clear from looking at outside forecasts that people expect us to reach our inflation target and many independent forecasters think that we may do rather better.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the determination by the British Government to hold to the central rate within the ERM will increase the confidence of the holders of sterling in continuing to hold sterling and therefore allow a lower rate of premium for sterling interest rates against those of the deutschmark? Is not this the most virtuous way of ensuring that our rates will fall as inflation falls?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all knew what the consequences would be when we chose to join the exchange rate mechanism and I assume that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who urged us to join were also aware of the consequences. Our overwhelming priority must be to stick within the bands of the ERM, but it is true that, as the underlying rate of inflation is seen to come down, so the scope for interest rate reductions may become wider.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Chancellor accept that, even with this morning's announcement from Germany, our interest rates are still very substantially above those elsewhere in Europe? Will the Government finally wake up to the fact that their policy of exclusive reliance on high interest rates for demand management has succeeded in plunging this country into recession, starving industry of investment funds and ensuring that our economic performance has been far worse than Germany's?

Mr. Lamont: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can say that our economic performance has been worse than that of Germany when our growth rate, our manufacturing output performance and our manufacturing investment in the recent past have all grown faster than those of Germany. As regards the hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not understand why he persists in saying that we rely only on interest rates when we have one of the tightest fiscal positions of any of the G7 countries. As regards the hon. Gentleman's first point, our interest rates are higher than those of Germany because our inflation rate is higher. Our real rates of interest, which measure the real burden on industry, are not higher than those of France, Germany or, indeed, Italy.

Manufacturing Productivity

Mr. Wells: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufacturing productivity has increased between 1979 and 1989.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Manufacturing productivity increased by 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1989, more than in any other major industrial country over the period in question.

Mr. Wells: Does my hon. Friend agree that that performance shows the success of the Conservative Government's economic policies? Will not we need more and a longer period of such Conservative Government policies now that we have joined the European exchange rate mechanism, because manufacturers can no longer take refuge in a devaluation of our exchange rate and must increase their productivity still further?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing output, employment and the number of firms reached record levels in 1990. Membership of the ERM is an additional discipline.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not it the case that our manufacturing production will go down if ICI leads the fertiliser business? That is likely simply because of dogma. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has blocked Kemira, a state-owned company, from taking over the fertiliser business owned by ICI. Is not that a disgrace when we remember that, in my constituency of Edinburgh, Leith and south of the border, many people are likely to lose their jobs? What does the Minister intend to do about that, remembering that a fight-back will take place and that a general election is just around the corner?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter which, as he recognises, is more properly for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I make the general point that an increase in unemployment depends crucially on how companies and labour forces split an essential reduction in unit labour costs between pay settlements, lower investment and fewer jobs.

Mr. Favell: As it is clear that the social charter would have an adverse effect on manufacturing productivity, may I have my hon. Friend's cast-iron assurance that the Government will not give in to Commissioner Papandreou and agree to the social charter?

Mrs. Shephard: The Government will continue to pursue the prudent and sensible economic policies that have brought so much success over the past decade.

Mr. Boateng: Given the current state of the Government's economic policies and their perverse and asinine equation of working with hurting, how many people have to be flung out of work before Ministers go to the Dispatch Box to tell us that their economic policies are working—2 million or 2·5 million? Have they any idea?

Mrs. Shephard: The real threat to employment and to economic success is inflation. I repeat my point that the increase in unemployment will depend crucially on the way in which management and labour forces deal with wage settlements. We do not need any lectures from the Opposition when we remember that manufacturing output under Labour fell by 2½ per cent.

Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend notice that, in 1979, Scotland's premier exporting industry, the Scotch whisky industry was in recession? It was overstocked and underproducing, while distilleries and bottling and blending plants were closing. Today Scotch whisky exports are at an all-time high and that is the direct result of the Government's policies.

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scotch whisky industry has had remarkable success. It now exports 85 per cent. of what it produces. That is in large measure due to its own efforts and the Government's successful policies and support.

Income Tax

Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on Government revenues of a 1p cut in the basic rate of tax.

Mr. Maude: About £2 billion in a full year.

Dr. Godman: I know that the Chancellor is a bit of a chancer, but may I urge him to resist taking the main


chance offered by such a tax cut? Will he instead provide more expenditure for the training of our actual and potential work force? Would not such expenditure enable many unemployed people to aspire to skills and knowledge that would put them in a better position in the labour market?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes his Budget representations in a somewhat delphic way. In response to his point about spending money on training, I mentioned earlier, and repeat for his benefit, that the CBI survey indicates that the amount of money spent by private companies on training is likely to be increased or maintained this year. The majority of companies are expecting to increase the amount that they spend on training. That is good news. We have already a massive programme of training in Britain, which is very much to be welcomed.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend resist this year the urge to raise taxes, particularly on savings? Would not the Opposition's suggestion of reintroducing the investment income surcharge discourage savings? Does not that show how little the Opposition's underlying attitudes have changed, whatever their glossy image is?

Mr. Maude: The idea propounded by the Labour party that one should at the same time encourage savings and tax them more heavily is one which I have not yet managed to understand.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Patchett: Has the Prime Minister seen reports this morning that the Italian cargo vessel the Karin B is returning to Britain with a cargo of toxic waste? In view of the grave public anxiety on the matter, will he ensure that under no circumstances will the ship be allowed into any British port with its deadly cargo?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that waste will be allowed into this country only if it is safe to treat it. We shall certainly apply that principle to the Karin B and its cargo.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that in the nuclear weapons age the much pilloried phrase, "Careless talk costs lives" is a dramatic understatement? Does he further agree that the intolerable position in which Admiral Sir Tom Woodward was put in a public discussion on television early yesterday morning by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was a serious threat, especially as the right hon. Gentleman asked that the relationship between the President of the United States and British use of nuclear weapons be brought out into the open? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows the importance of the existing convention which applies to the matter?

The Prime Minister: It is an important convention. However, I did not see the interview and I should prefer not to comment too directly upon it.

Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that Admiral Woodward was a great deal more candid than Ministers have been about the use of nuclear weapons in the Gulf? Is he also aware that there is widespread anxiety in Britain about the extension of the war aims well beyond the United Nations objectives relating to Kuwait and about the possibility of an extension of the war? Will he welcome the initiative of the French Government in going to Tehran to see whether at this late stage some progress might be made by negotiation leading to a ceasefire?

The Prime Minister: I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I did not see the interview with Admiral Woodward and I have no comment on it. On the war aims, I have made it clear consistently that our aims are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. That is and remains the position.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the somewhat fragile political climate in South Africa, following the welcome meeting of reconciliation between Chief Buthelezi and Mr. Nelson Mandela? What action can the Government take to encourage the nations of the world to take a more positive attitude towards South Africa to encourage that country faster and further down the road to reform which we all want to see it travel?

The Prime Minister: I very much welcome the meeting between Chief Buthelezi and Mr. Mandela. It is an extremely welcome development. As my hon. Friend will know, the European Community nations lifted the investment sanction some time ago because of the progress that has been made. If, as I hope, further progress on dismantling apartheid is made soon, I hope that we shall see a further gesture from the European Community, the United States and the Commonwealth on lifting sanctions.

Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir David Steel: After the Gulf war, bearing in mind what was done after the Falklands war, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a high-level inquiry into the acquisition by Iraq of British arms and technology, including some from private companies, quangos and Government Departments, so that lessons may be learned, and so that never again will our forces be faced with an enemy armed partly by ourselves?

The Prime Minister: There is a considerable degree of sensitivity about the supply of arms and equipment. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq for precisely that reason. We will take great care in future to ensure that we are careful about that matter.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of loyalty and service to NATO of the republic of Turkey in the last 45 years, and also to the United Nations in Korea and to United Nations endeavours in the Gulf, is worthy of great praise and should be considered carefully by other NATO members and members of the European Community?

The Prime Minister: Turkey certainly has a distinguished record in NATO, and I am happy to acknowledge that fact.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that any interest rate rise in Britain in response to today's rise in German interest rates would be disastrous for industry?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we will set interest rates and reduce interest rates when we think it is appropriate. As he knows, we have made our position on the subject perfectly clear. When it is appropriate and in the interests of the economy to reduce interest rates, and when we see that the reduction will be sustained, we will take action.

Mr. Kinnock: The Government have been telling us for years that they have been curing inflation. Is not it the case that they have always made the mistake of combating inflation only with high interest rates, with the result that they have hit investment? How does the Prime Minister expect the country to become more competitive in advance of the completion of the single market if all the time he is wearing down investment, skills, training and the other things that are essential to enable Britain to compete?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should know that as our inflation differential with the European Community narrows, we will be in a position to reduce interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman, who invariably advocates the cutting of interest rates, may recall that he also advocated a further cut in interest rates in 1987. Had we then followed his advice, we would have faced a far greater problem today.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will have great difficulty in saying to anyone that he could have greater difficulties than those caused by 1,000 redundancies a day, a reduction in output, a reduction in investment and the highest interest rates in the developed world.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about Britain's success in the 1990s, he needs to bear it in mind that we must get inflation down to the rate of our competitors. We are prepared to take action to do so. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman, as ever, wants the soft option.

Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contribution made by Germany yesterday to Britain's war expenses is extremely welcome? Can he indicate to the House whether he expects contributions from any other source?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the further contribution of £275 million from Germany is very welcome. So also is the offer to provide some military material. I spoke to Chancellor Kohl this morning and was able to thank him for the generosity of the German people.

Mrs. Heal: Following the visit yesterday by hon. Members, all of whom happened to be women, to the wives of the service men serving in the Gulf, will the Prime

Minister take the opportunity to write a letter of support to the wives, many of whom feel isolated and lonely? Will he agree to do that? Will he also agree to a delegation of the wives coming to Westminster to explain to hon. Members their difficulties and feelings while they are supporting their husbands who are serving in the Gulf?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about the remarkable contribution made by the wives of our service men. I hope shortly to have the opportunity of visiting a number of the wives in Germany and I look forward to that. I would be happy to send the letter that the hon. Lady suggests.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be few worse examples of the inhumanity of Saddam Hussein than his cruelty to the prisoners of war and their families in refusing the International Red Cross access to them? Will he do everthing in his power to ensure that that access is achieved?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly doing that. The action by the Iraqis in refusing access is intolerable and unforgivable. We are in daily touch with the Red Cross in Geneva and are doing our best to support its efforts. I shall be meeting the president of the Red Cross early next week.

Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister share my view that it is obscene that the lives of coalition forces in the Gulf are threatened by arms and weapons probably made by their own families in their own country? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an unequivocal assurance today that he will take Britain out of the international arms trade, which includes the training of personnel from other countries and providing technical know-how?

The Prime Minister: The obscenity lies in Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, and the sooner that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the better.

Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an act of naked aggression, but Israel's occupation of the west bank and Gaza was brought about by decades of Arab intolerance of the state of Israel and that, because of those two different scenarios, there should be no linkage at any future date?

The Prime Minister: It is clear that the situation is different because in 1967 it was Israel which was attacked. But we now have to look to the future and a solution to the Arab-Israel problem based on territory for peace. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait has made that task much


more difficult, but as I have said to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks, we shall certainly be looking to see whether we can bring that peace forward as soon as the conflict is over.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Prime Minister share my admiration for the prompt response of senior members of the Commonwealth to the invasion of Kuwait? Does he share my hope that those ties with the Commonwealth will endure long after various temporary entanglements have disappeared?

The Prime Minister: I most certainly do, without qualification.

Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thorne: As justice delayed is justice denied, will my right hon. Friend, in his usual caring fashion, be kind enough to examine the efficiency of the courts and whether it is right that people, particularly from abroad, should be obliged to wait so long for their trial? I am thinking in particular of Mrs. Dina Le Tarle, the American wife of a surgeon, aged 29, who has been prosecuted for her actions while responding to muggers on the underground. She has now been waiting three months for her trial—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the case is sub judice, the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.

The Prime Minister: I understand the general point that my hon. Friend makes. The Government are concerned to reduce to a minimum delay in all criminal cases.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Prime Minister will know that many of the soldiers who are serving well in the Gulf are in the Army because they could not get jobs in civvy street and when the Gulf war is over there will be soldiers who, unfortunately, will be unfit for Army service. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee them jobs in Glasgow arid the north of England?

The Prime Minister: The early part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be widely resented by many of our forces in the Gulf. I heard from him no talk of employment during the 40 successive months when unemployment was falling.

Mr. Page: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend is hearing from those who wish to see extensions to the sanction period in respect of the Gulf calls to bring about a ceasefire. For the benefit of the House, will my right hon. Friend surmise why those people are trying to put our troops in extra danger by giving Saddam Hussein the breathing space to develop a nuclear weapon?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point. We are not interested in a pause or a ceasefire, which would simply enable Iraq to regroup, resupply its forces and place our troops in greater peril. The conflict over Kuwait will be concluded only when all the provisions of Security Council resolution 678 have been met.

The Gulf

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Gulf conflict and various matters arising therefrom.
The allied campaign to liberate Kuwait was launched two weeks ago. The initial aim was to establish air supremacy and then sufficiently to reduce the military capability of the Iraqis' armed forces so that the liberation of Kuwait will be successfully achieved with the minimum of casualties to our forces.
During this first period more than 30,000 allied sorties have been flown against what were initially substantial air defences. From those 30,000 sorties, 19 aircraft have not returned—of which five were British. The House knows of those most regrettable losses in the first week, but will be pleased to note that no British aircraft have been lost in the past week. That pleasure is combined with the deepest admiration for the skill and courage of our aircrews and of all the allies at the way in which they have sustained the vital air campaign. The initial denial to the Iraqis of the use of their airfields, in which the Tornados played such a critical part, the progressive suppression of their ground air defences, in which the Jaguars have been very active, and the shooting down of their aircraft seeking combat have enabled air supremacy to be achieved, so that hardened aircraft shelters and other military and strategic targets can be progressively attacked. That supremacy has been underlined by the sudden departure of about 100 Iraqi aircraft to Iran.
The achievements of the air campaign so far include the destruction of all nuclear reactor capacity and of about half Iraq's biological and chemical production; substantial damage to military fuel and ammunition stores; the putting out of action of a number of airfields; major damage to command and control facilities; the loss of centralised control of air defences; the progressive reduction of Scud launch capability; and the hitting of 22 bridges to inhibit the resupply of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
However, substantial as those achievements are, I must warn the House that so vast is the Iraqi military capacity that it is likely to be some time yet before it will be sufficiently reduced for the allies to proceed with the liberation of Kuwait.
In that connection, we have received a request from the United States Government for a limited number of B52s to be temporarily based at RAF Fairford to undertake missions with conventional munitions against Iraqi military or strategic targets that are supporting the continuing Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. RAF Fairford is an established forward-operating base for B52s, and the Government have readily agreed to the request.
At sea, while the allied navies have been much involved since August in enforcing the embargo, it is only in the last few days that there has been any significant action against the Iraqi navy. In those engagements, in which Royal Navy Lynx helicopters and RAF Jaguars played an important role, 10 Iraqi patrol boats and minesweepers were sunk, and up to a further 25 damaged. A number of those vessels had an Exocet capability. Those naval encounters frustrated what may have been an amphibious attack designed to coincide with the land attack at Khafji that occurred yesterday.
In respect of the 1st Armoured Division, the continuing delivery of supplies is further enhancing its battle-ready capability.
The House will be aware that we are now starting to hold a number of Iraqi prisoners of war. I reaffirm that they will be held in strict conformity with the requirements of the Geneva convention. That is our absolute commitment and we insist on those requirements being observed by the Government of Iraq as well. The parade of captured aircrew on television is in total breach of the convention—as would be any detention of them at strategic sites. I regret to inform the House that the International Committee of the Red Cross has still not even been informed of the names of any prisoners, let alone been granted the access to which it is entitled. That inhuman treatment of the prisoners is causing great distress and the thoughts of us all are with their families —as is our admiration for their courage and steadfastness at such a difficult time. I confirm that we are making the strongest representations to the Red Cross and the Iraqi authorities for our concerns to be met.
I refer next to our strengths in the Gulf. At the start of operations, we committed some 35,000 service men and women. We have since strengthened some units already deployed. Three additional battalions are being deployed to fulfil our obligations to any prisoners of war. With the extra Buccaneers that I announced on 25 January, total United Kingdom personnel now committed will rise to about 42,000.
The full operating costs in 1990–91 now total more than £1·25 billion, excluding the cost of any replacement of lost equipment and of munitions used, which so far totals nearly £200 million. The daily operating cost has risen to more than £4 million.
In connection with those costs, I very much welcome the announcement by the German Government of a contribution of a further 800 million deutschmarks to our costs. We are very hopeful of other contributions from our friends and allies in support of our efforts in support of the United Nations.
As to matters of particular interest to our forces and their families, there have been complaints over difficulties in the availability at post offices of the very popular air letter—the bluey—and steps have been taken that I hope have dealt with their problem.
Some hon. Members told me of service families being charged normal international airmail rates for sending parcels to the Gulf. I am pleased to announce that, from tomorrow, the Post Office is suspending the use of normal airmail rates for any parcels sent to BFPO addresses in the Gulf. All will be charged at the normal United Kingdom inland parcel rate. That clear instruction should end any confusion at post office counters.
The telephone service that we installed with the help of British Telecom and Mercury has been very popular, but it is obviously somewhat expensive. We therefore propose to subsidise calls for all service personnel from the Gulf, on a basis similar to that for forces in Northern Ireland. The value of that subsidy will be up to £10 a month—affecting, for example, five three-minute calls at half price. Many of our forces are not in early reach of a telephone kiosk at the moment, but their entitlement under that scheme will be accumulated for later use.
The House can be proud of the way in which the armed forces are contributing to the multinational effort. They have made an excellent start and, thankfully, losses have


been few. However, there is some way to go yet, and there may be setbacks and at times unwelcome news. None the less, I have no doubt of the determination of the House and the country to give our forces the support that they need to bring their task to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and I think that the whole House would want to join in his tribute to the courage and skill which have been displayed by our airmen during the past two weeks, and to join him in noting that there have been no casualties and no losses to the air force during the past week. We also join him in deploring the Iraqi authorities' failure to intimate to the International Committee of the Red Cross the identity of prisoners and those people whom it is alleged have been detained at militarily sensitive locations.
We also note what the Secretary of State said about basing B52s at Fairford. Perhaps he could tell us why Britain was chosen and which, if any, other European countries have agreed to participate. We also note from his statement that the United States has not employed the normal "neither confirm nor deny" formula in respect of nuclear devices and that no nuclear air-launched cruise missiles will be carried by these aeroplanes. Will he also confirm that the aircraft will be based at Fairford only for the duration of the conflict?
We join the Secretary of State in expressing our appreciation for the German donation to the war effort. Which other countries have been approached for contributions?
We note the attempt to resolve the problem of telephone calls, but how does that facility compare with that afforded by AT and T to United States troops in the Gulf?
In his statement the Secretary of State mentioned the town of Khafji. Will he tell us more about the circumstances surrounding the liberation of that town, the casualties involved and what prisoners have been taken? Could he enlighten the House as to what military use the town of Khafji would have been to the Iraqis and whether he has any inkling of the idea behind the attack? Will he also give us some information about the latest developments regarding polluting of the Gulf by the Iraqis releasing oil? What is happening there?
Can the Secretary of State give any information to the House about reporters' access to troops, because journalists in Scotland have made a number of complaints about their inability to gain access to the Scottish regiments, which account for some 40 per cent. of the troops in the Gulf?

Mr. King: I thank the hon. Member for his general welcome and the support that he gave on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I certainly confirm that the application in respect of the B52s is temporary, and that we have an absolute assurance that they will use only conventional munitions when operating from that base, which is important. Other countries will be assisting with the successful deployment of B52s in various ways and one other country will be involved in basing, but I think that it will shortly be making its own announcement and the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not anticipate it.
The contribution from Germany is certainly very much appreciated. I would rather not say which other countries

we might be approaching. I am glad to say that some of our friends and allies are approaching us. There is widespread recognition of the world community wishing to make its contribution to the multinational effort in whichever way it feels appropriate.
The hon. Member mentioned telephones and several other hon. Members were shouting about that during my statement. It needs to be considered seriously. The Americans tried to introduce and had a trial of a free system. The problem was that people who were able to use it used it all the time and it broke down. There was much more criticism because people could not then have access to the limited lines and facilities that exist. It is my understanding that the Americans have now returned to a form of subsidised system.
We try to tackle the problems. An important point that we have to tackle is that many of the people whom we are trying to help are not trying to telephone this country from the Gulf; they are trying to telephone Germany. I am glad to say that, under an arrangement that we have made—I understand that it has not yet been possible for the Americans to match it—people will be able to telephone from the Gulf to Germany for the same subsidised low price as it would cost them to telephone this country. That is, I think, significantly better than what other countries have been able to do.
I can confirm that, according to my understanding, Prince Khalid has announced that Khafji is now clear of the intruders, and I am sure that we welcome the defeat of that incursion. Although there was a further oil discharge, and it was clear that the Iraqis were actively discharging and pumping oil into the Gulf, the latest information that I have received—uncorroborated, but believed to be true —suggests that it has now ceased.

Mr. Michael Mates: The whole House will wish to join my right hon. Friend in expressing its utter disgust at the way in which prisoners of war have been treated by the Iraqi authorities. Will my right hon. Friend, however, press the International Committee of the Red Cross rather harder to speak out robustly about what it knows to be the correct conditions, so that the relatives of prisoners of war can be assured not only that we are doing all that we can—which, frankly, is very little—but that the ICRC is, too? Will my right hon. Friend also say a little more about the arrangements that he has made in the Ministry of Defence to keep relatives up to date with the current position?

Mr. King: In answer to the latter question, let me say that we are operating a round-the-clock contact service, and are trying to provide as much information as we can about these difficult matters. As my hon. Friend will know, we are maintaining very close contact with the services welfare organisations to ensure that that is done effectively.
We are bringing to bear all possible pressure and influence on the ICRC. An ICRC medical team is now going to Baghdad and we hope that it will be able to carry the work forward. The president of the ICRC is coming to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister next week.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, associate myself with the Secretary of State's observations about the


performance of our troops, especially that of the RAF pilots flying the ground attack version of the Tornado, whose bravery has been exemplary?
My hon. Friends and I accept that the deployment of B52s at RAF Fairford is justified if its purpose is to shorten the war and to reduce allied casualties. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand, however, that some people may be concerned about the deployment and will he take this opportunity of letting the people of the United Kingdom further into his confidence and explaining a little more clearly the current operational requirements for that deployment?

Mr. King: I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and especially grateful for his support of the RAF contribution to the campaign. The House will share his views.
I am also grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's clarification, on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, of the position regarding the B52s. We want the conflict to end at the earliest possible time. Criticisms have been made of B52s in the past, but they have a precision bombing capability and they will be deployed against military and strategic targets to accelerate the end of the conflict and the liberation of Kuwait. That is clearly part of the purpose. B52s are already deployed in a number of airfields, but there is no further capacity there. It was necessary to increase the capacity and that is why the further requests have been made.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The German Government's contribution to the cost of the war is welcome, but should not account also be taken of the fact that the British taxpayer is at the same time making a substantial contribution to the cost of German unification? More important, does my right hon. Friend agree that the making of a series of ad hoc lump-sum payments to finance the war is not a satisfactory arrangement? The war may go on for a considerable time. What is needed is a general assessment relating to the international community, on a percentage or other basis, so that the burden can be fairly shared among all who will gain from the defeat of aggression.

Mr. King: I note my right hon. Friend's comments and understand the thoughts behind them. Costs have increased sharply due to the conflict, which has led to a loss of equipment and ammunition. Moreover, we have a large number of men and women out there. We are very grateful for the support that we have received, but it would be more satisfactory if it were on a slightly more regular basis. I shall certainly think about my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the ICRC and the Geneva convention. It is absolutely essential that all those involved in the conflict should stay within the terms of the United Nations resolutions and the Geneva convention. The same criterion must be extended to our allies. Will the Secretary of State therefore discuss with his Israeli counterparts the treatment that they are handing out to the 1·7 million Palestinians on the west bank and Gaza? They are not observing the Geneva convention, particularly when it comes to the 24-hour curfew that they

have imposed on the west bank and Gaza and the recent arrest of Sari Husseibh. May I ask him to raise these matters with his Israeli counterpart and to say whether the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been able to find out whether Her Majesty's Government have spare gas masks that could be given to the Israeli Government for use by the Palestinians?

Mr. King: I have not met my Israeli opposite number, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but I shall certainly ensure that his comments are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary because I understand the strength of feeling about these issues.

Sir Bernard Braine: As the Father of the House, may I put to my right hon. Friend a simple request: to convey to the pilots and aircrew in the Gulf our great admiration of their courage, steadfastness and professional skill?

Mr. King: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who occupies his position with such dignity. I shall certainly ensure that the message is conveyed.

Mr. John Cartwright: Yesterday we saw Iraqi tanks apparently pretending to surrender in order to mount an attack. Oil has deliberately been pumped into the waters of the Gulf. We have seen missile attacks on Israeli cities and the misuse of allied prisoners of war. Does not all that demonstrate that Saddam Hussein has no intention of fighting this war under any sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules? Has that lesson now been learnt by the allied military commanders and will they plan accordingly?

Mr. King: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting in any way that we should walk away from the standards and codes of practice and behaviour that he would expect us to follow and we have no intention of doing so. The matters that he has rightly drawn to the attention of the House confirm what so many of us feel so strongly: that this cause, now embarked on, has to be seen through and that everything that has happened since shows what a very evil and monstrous military regime exists in Iraq.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the part of the UN resolution that authorises the current action and calls for the restoration of peace and security in the region also authorises, if necessary, the invasion of Iraq in order to destroy Saddam Hussein and his war machine?

Mr. King: The issue of resolution 678 is one which, I am glad to say, is now being seriously addressed by a lot of people. I put it most simply: there is no point in seeking to achieve the liberation of Kuwait if Kuwait cannot stay liberated. The answering of that question deserves—not in slogans, nor by attempting to accuse some people of bellicosity or aggression—very serious consideration. That is precisely why, in its good sense, the United Nations put that point in the resolution. How it is going to be achieved —whether by economic sanctions or by military action —will depend on how the situation develops. But let there be no doubt that it would betray—as I have said on another occasion—all those who are prepared to risk their lives in this conflict if we settled for some halfway solution, only to have to return to the problem in a year's time.

Dame Jill Knight: Is not the reason for so many telephone calls to Germany from our forces in the Gulf the fact that many of their wives are in Germany? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that they are under great strain and that they are bearing it very bravely? Will he assure the House and the country that everything possible is being done to sustain and support those ladies?

Mr. King: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said because that is precisely the point. May I also express my appreciation to her and other hon. Members, some of whom have been to visit the wives in Germany. We must be very conscious of the fact that it is one thing for the wife of a service man if her husband goes to the conflict in the Gulf, but if that wife is herself in a foreign country, albeit an ally, it is a double separation. I am grateful for the interest taken by hon. Members and for what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The whole House will support what the Secretary of State said about the treatment of our prisoners of war. I want to put to him a delicate point which I hope will not be misunderstood as a sign of weakness. Because my support for the troops is so strong, I hope that I will not be misunderstood. The prisoners of war are entitled to proper treatment under the Geneva convention as of right and the Secretary of State is right to stress that to the Red Cross. At the same time, I believe that we should consider sending humanitarian aid to Iraqi children and sick people. That is not irreconcilable with fighting a strong war and may help our prisoners of war.

Mr. King: We have the greatest human sympathy for the suffering of many of the Iraqi people at this time. That is why so many of us strove so hard to find a peaceful solution. Saddam Hussein clearly does not care deeply about the suffering of his people and is quite prepared to embark on these adventures, as he showed in the Iran-Iraq war and now with his aggression against Kuwait. His aggression exposes his people, including children, to very real suffering. I hope that the Red Cross will be able to perform its wide role not just in respect of prisoners of war but perhaps in other ways.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As one who represents many of the service men and women in the Gulf and their families, may I join in the tributes paid to their courage and resilience. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some criticism that the royal yacht Britannia, which was originally built as a hospital ship, has not been sent to the Gulf? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that RFA Argus, which he and I grew to know well during our time in Northern Ireland when it was under construction and then in commission, is the most suitable medical support ship? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the choice made by the Government was entirely to give our forces the best possible support?

Mr. King: Yes, that is absolutely correct. RFA Argus was built by Harland and Wolff and has been converted to a hospital ship. It will play a useful and substantial role. It was the most convenient ship to use. I must make it clear that we were well aware that Her Majesty would wish any requirement for a hospital ship for the troops to take precedence over the royal yacht's use in any royal duties. However, it was on the other side of the Atlantic at the

time and would have needed some conversion work such as helicopter decks and other things and it was quicker and more convenient to use RFA Argus.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as Iraq has invaded a second neighbouring country, those who demonstrate for peace would do well to demonstrate outside Iraqi embassies? As a former joint chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, has he received any information from those allies on help in pursuing the campaign? I understand that their Opposition leader would like to send a field hospital.

Mr. King: I have not received any such request or suggestion, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Dublin this afternoon. I am sure that he would be willing to receive any offers of support. The multinational support that we are getting is widely spread through many countries. As the evil of the Iraqi regime is now being exposed, many people wish to see how they can contribute. I pay tribute to the Republic of Ireland, which has contributed to other United Nations forces in the past.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, Mr. Dick Cheney, General Colin Powell, President Bush and our Prime Minister on their conception and implementation of this campaign so far. It has been specifically designed to minimise allied and Iraqi civilian casualties. Does not that contrast most starkly with Saddam Hussein's flagrant disregard for human life —particularly civilian human life—in using Scud missiles against the civilian populations of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and his flagrant violation of the Geneva convention in respect of our own and allied prisoners of war?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm, from the evidence available to me, that it seems that our requirements to minimise civilian casualties and to ensure that the campaign is conducted so as to minimise our casualties are being met in the way that we would wish. None the less, we could experience setbacks, as I warned the House. We would much rather never have had this conflict in the first place. If there had been no aggression, no conflict would have been necessary.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of us think that his announcement about telephone calls is unbelievably mean? Even if every man and woman in the services could use this facility, it would cost a maximum of £400,000 a month, whereas in the same period the war would have cost the country £130 million. As we hope to reclaim a substantial part of these costs from other countries, I urge the Minister to think again and to see whether he can achieve a better scheme to help men and women who have shown a readiness to put their lives on the line.

Mr. King: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said. We built on the experience of the United States authorities, which tried a free trial and found that it led only to greater congestion and fewer people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may seek to advance this as a great cause, but I understand from all the reports that I have received that our forces regard it as a very fair arrangement. I believe—some of the soldiers in the Gulf would agree with this—that some of


our forces in Northern Ireland are undertaking tasks, and have done so for many years, that are every bit as challenging and dangerous as some of the assignments in the Gulf. The right hon. Gentleman has not spoken up for them before. I am anxious to ensure, as far as possible, that we treat people fairly, and I think that this is a very fair scheme.

Dame Janet Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend consider the feasibility of setting up a blood donor unit in the Palace of Westminster so that those of us who want to support the troops in a practical way will be able to do so?

Mr. King: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. In many ways, practical suggestions mean a great deal to our forces in the Gulf. The Lord President has heard my hon. Friend's comments and he is happy to look into them.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Did the Secretary of State see the report in yesterday's Evening Standard that Iraqi troops were shot while they were praying? How does that square with the allies' claim that they would be sensitive to religious issues? Does he condone the killing of Iraqi troops while they were praying and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. King: I have no knowledge of that allegation. Obviously, I do not know whether it is possible to check whether it is true. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in this regrettable conflict there will undoubtedly be a lot of propaganda and many attempts to deceive and exploit such emotions. The hon. Gentleman should check whether the allegations are soundly based before he makes them.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My right hon. Friend has let it be known in the past few days that he is extremely worried that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis may attempt to use chemical weapons. Will he, through whatever channels remain open to him, ensure that the Iraqis are aware that, according to the conventions and articles of war, if they do such a thing, they will be dealt the most grievous retaliation?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It cannot be emphasised too strongly and I am grateful for the forceful way in which he put it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to avoid the grim prospect of a land war in the Gulf would be for the undoubtedly brave and patriotic service men of the Iraqi armed forces to rid their country of a Government who have brought shame and destruction on their Arab nation? Will he assure the House that we and all members of the coalition respect the integrity of Iraq and that we want to help the Iraqis to reconstruct and to achieve a democratic future for their people?

Mr. King: We certainly have no quarrel with the people of Iraq and we have no ambition for their territory. We have the deepest sympathy for them as they suffer under the present regime.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before D day the

allies had overwhelming command of the air, yet it still took a year before the land campaign was won? In that context, will he confirm that there will be no question of a ceasefire to enable Saddam Hussein to launch an Ardennes-type offensive?
Does he consider the 100 Iraqi aeroplanes that have gone to Iran to be effectively neutralised, or do they still constitute a threat?

Mr. King: On the last point, Iran is, of course, a member of the United Nations and therefore bound by the resolutions. It must—and has made it clear that it —will give full support to the United Nations resolutions, so I sincerely trust that the aeroplanes will play no further part in the conflict.
On the first point about carrying through the campaign, it would be wrong to our forces who are now embarked if there were to be a stop-start situation—a hesitation then a start again—which would allow the enemy to regroup. We have given Saddam Hussein every opportunity. We went not only a further mile, but a further mile again. He failed to take that opportunity. We must ensure the liberation of Kuwait and the achievement of the United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State now address the substantial complaint in the Scottish press about its access to Scottish front-line troops in the Gulf? The Scottish regiments comprise up to 40 per cent. of the front-line forces. What is his Department doing to dispel the suspicion that, when looking for people to get shot at in the desert, the Ministry of Defence looks to Scotland first, but that when looking for people to comment or write on it, it looks to Scotland last?

Mr. King: I apologise, because the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised the matter with me and has already written to me. I can confirm that we looked into the matter. We have teams in the Gulf, but they cannot rely absolutely on unlimited access to the front-line area. A vacancy has now come up and a Scottish reporter will join one of the front-line teams.

Miss Emma Nicholson: In Germany yesterday, the wives expressed their particular concern about matters to do with bereavement. Will my right hon. Friend assure those wives and the House that Christian counselling will be provided for men and women who are wounded and that, in cases of bereavement, there will be Christian burial and, wherever possible, burial back in the United Kingdom if the next-of-kin so wish it?

Mr. King: On the first point about Christian counselling, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. She made a further point regarding burial. The usual practice is for forces to be buried close to the battlefield where they fall. The arrangement that we are making in this case—following our experience of the Falklands campaign—is that, although there will be temporary local burial, families will subsequently have the choice of a Christian burial for their relatives in the Gulf area or the repatriation of the body for burial in this country.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I make a plea to the Secretary of State on behalf of an admittedly small number of service men's families? I


refer to those members of the American forces in the Persian Gulf who are Scots-born, whose parents in Scotland are given no facilities to write to them. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his officials to discuss the matter with their American counterparts? A laddie in my constituency has a son fighting with the American marines and receives no concessions whatever. Admittedly, I am talking about a small number of service men, but their interests need to be taken care of none the less.

Mr. King: I had not heard that, but I shall certainly look into the matter because I am sure that the Americans would wish people in that position to have any facilities that it was possible to give them.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the allies have control of the skies, with all that that means in military terms, is substantially due to what happened in the first days of the action and to the tremendous job of destroying airfield capability by the Royal Air Force Tornado crews? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the RAF presentation team will come to the House on 19 February and that hon. Members will have the opportunity to put to it any questions that they wish?
As for Scotland, Scots have always been proud to serve this country, whether in Scottish regiments, in the Royal Air Force or in the Royal Navy.

Mr. King: I certainly recognise the truth of my hon. Friend's latter sentence. I am pleased that the RAF presentation team is to come to the House. That will give hon. Members a chance to learn more about the training and background activities of the Royal Air Force which have contributed to its outstanding contribution to the multinational effort.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware re that some of the young Scottish soldiers are writing home to their mums and families asking for supplies such as talcum powder, boiled sweets, boots, gloves and toothpaste? [Laughter.] This is no light matter. Did the Secretary of State see on television the other night the appalling sight of young American soldiers shivering? I only hope that none of the British troops is sitting over there shivering while we bask in this heat and that they have the comforts that are due to them.

Mr. King: We have certainly sought to provide as well as we can for our forces, and hon. Members who have been out to the Gulf have concluded that our efforts have generally been successful. We have also sought to do something about the parcel service, in so far as it is possible to get parcels through, which it will be in the next days. I have not yet told the House of the very constructive offer made by United Carriers, which has depots round the country. If any of the mums to whom the hon. Gentleman referred takes her parcel to a United Carriers depot, the company will deliver it free of charge to the defence postal and courier headquarters in London, from where it will go free of charge to the Gulf.

Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm and reaffirm that allied war aims have not altered at all since 15 January and are contained entirely in the United Nations resolutions, especially resolution 678, and that every single action that has been taken by allied

troops has been in pursuit of—and only in pursuit of— those United Nations resolutions and that that will remain the case until the end of the fighting?

Mr. King: I can certainly give that assurance. I believe that some people may not have studied those resolutions in the past. Those are absolutely the war aims on which we are agreed and which I think commentators, in analysing them, realise must be the objectives that we should pursue.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Secretary of State aware that constituents of mine whose husbands are working as civilians on the Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia are very concerned because their husbands, although they have been supplied with gas masks, have been given no extra clothing, training, instruction or assistance of any kind, as I understand it? Will he institute a thorough investigation so that British civilians working in the Gulf area may be fully protected from possible chemical warfare attacks?

Mr. King: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to civilians working for the Ministry of Defence or the Government or civilians working for contractors in the Gulf. It is initially the responsibility of their employers to ensure that they are properly provided for, and if employers approached us we would always see what assistance we could give. In the case of gas masks, we have sought to do that.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now a large number of local support groups for the families of the troops, and not just in the traditional garrison towns? I cite, for example, Gulf Troops and Family Support set up in my constituency by Mr. and Mrs. Brister, who have a son in the Gulf. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that such groups receive full encouragement and assistance and that there is no effort to squeeze them out because they are not traditional, long-established groups? Will he, in particular, talk to British Telecom and get it to be more helpful?

Mr. King: We would give them any help and encouragement that we could. I am very grateful to them for the role that they are playing. I am grateful, also, to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members because I believe that one of the most valuable forms of help and support for those groups is the interest of their local Members of Parliament.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not a sad, serious and chilling reminder of dangers ahead that the House has been told that only half Saddam Hussein's capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons has been destroyed? Recognising that he not only threatens to use these weapons but has used them in the past against Kurds and others and that this is a danger to our troops, to civilians in Saudi Arabia and to civilians in Israel, whether Arab or Jewish, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that every effort is being made to destroy not only the remaining 50 per cent. of production capacity but existing stocks, which he has not mentioned?

Mr. King: I can confirm that some storage has been destroyed, although we also believe that there has been some dispersal, mainly in the form of artillery ammunition, of some of the chemical stocks, for example. These matters underline what I said about the monstrous


scale of that military machine. I believe that the House has been impressed by the scale of the air campaign and by the volume of munitions used. It is a measure of the scale of that machine that I have to report to the House that there is still some way to go before the land campaign can be safely embarked upon.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that throughout the country there is the profoundest admiration for and gratitude to all who have taken part in this campaign so far, from the Prime Minister and himself down? Does he also accept that an essential prerequisite for the superb performance of our RAF Tornado pilots in this campaign was the low-flying training that they received in peace time? Does he therefore share my hope that when the conflict is over we shall hear a little less from the whingers and whiners who have tried to reduce those training programmes?

Mr. King: Nothing could have shown more clearly the importance of that low-flying training. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I know that in his constituency he will have had representations in the past and I appreciate his robust and important position on this.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Should not the right hon. Gentleman express his appreciation of the resolute support given to him in the latest resolution of the national executive committee of the Labour party? Does he understand that a large portion of the parliamentary Labour party does not support the leadership on this issue?

Mr. King: I would love to respond to that question, but I do not think that it is for me.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What my right hon. Friend said about the importance that the Government attach to proper postal and telephone arrangements will come as a great reassurance to the parents of a 21-year-old lance-corporal serving in the 39th Field Regiment who contacted me today to tell me of the problems that they have had. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any special problems in people receiving mail from Germany—for example, soldiers receiving letters from their wives? If there is a backlog, will he undertake to have it examined?

Mr. King: A number of difficult complications have arisen because of the basis on which some units have come to serve in the Gulf, but we are trying to deal with them. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. We are anxious. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is very keen to hear any other points, and we shall certainly try to sort them out.

Mr. Bruce George: Most hon. Members appreciate the regular and lengthy reporting by the Secretary of State to the House. I do not expect the Secretary of State to respond to every rumour, but is he in a position to confirm or deny that some of the aircraft that left Iraq for Iran have been shuttling back and forth from that country? What does that say about the Iraqi aims? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to confirm the story, again emanating from the United States, that Iraqi missiles are being smuggled into Jordan, stuffed inside oil trucks?

Mr. King: I have no information on the latter point. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, there may have been some redisposition of some Iraqi planes within Iran, but I do not know whether the Iranian authorities chose to position them on alternative airfields for their own convenience. I am not sure whether the question implied that they were going back into Iraq. I have no evidence of their doing that.

Mr. Michael Grylls: May I ask my right hon. Friend about television coverage? Although nobody in this House would wish to restrict political comment, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is room for some self-restraint, particularly by recently retired senior service officers who appear on television and discuss detailed tactics, just at the moment when the ground forces are about to be engaged with the enemy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some self-restraint might be a good idea?

Mr. King: I do agree. It is a challenge in a free society such as ours, when freedom of speech and comment is so readily available, when we are confronting a very dangerous enemy and when it may be possible for that enemy to glean important insights into our approaches and military practices from comments that are made. I hope and believe that those senior retired military officers are aware of that risk.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does not the battle over Khafji confirm what many of us feared and predicted from the outset—that once the ground fighting starts in earnest there will be many casualties on both sides? How many more people must die in this senseless conflict before a ceasefire is eventually called and more diplomatic effort is put into trying to build on attempts to find a peaceful solution, such as that which was tried yesterday by Secretary of State Baker and his Soviet counterpart?

Mr. King: A ceasefire now would be very welcome to Saddam Hussein. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who took an initial view on this, does not seem to have noticed during the pursuit of this campaign just how evil and dangerous is his monstrous military might. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) pointed out just how obscene are some of the practices that he follows. It would certainly be to the advantage of Saddam Hussein if we had a ceasefire, but I do not think that it would ensure future good order or benefit the world if we had one at this time.

Mr. David Tredinnick: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his decisions, first, to reduce telephone rates for troops—he will recall that I raised that very point before the war started—and, secondly, to introduce the domestic parcel rate, which will no doubt boost morale? Will he give an assurance that he is constantly looking at ways of boosting morale? Will he consider specifically the possibility of photographs being taken of troops in situ which will not compromise any secret positions, which could be sent home to families? That would be a significant morale booster.

Mr. King: Much of that is happening already, but I shall certainly look into the point. We are anxious to pursue any ideas which hon. Members may have. We have


been able to do a certain amount. Other ideas will be obstructed for operational reasons and difficulties, but we shall do anything that we can.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Has the Secretary of State had time to consider the special problems faced by schools attended by the children of armed service personnel? Last week representatives from the National Union of Teachers visited some of those schools to discuss with teachers the problems that they are experiencing. Will the Secretary of State give additional support to those schools so that they can work effectively with the children, who are suffering enormous fear and trauma as a result of what is happening to their families? Most of the schools are based in Germany, so they do not have the normal environment and support and that is an additional problem. Will the Secretary of State try to do something about that?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her point is a serious one. Tremendous efforts are being made. She will know that staff in the schools are receiving counselling and we are trying to deal with the problem. The problem for children during this television war is worrying. Every night they go home and see more pictures of what may be happening and of bombs, bullets and shells. We take the point seriously.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the business before the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is our pensions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: I was elected to speak here, not to keep quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but other hon. Members were also elected to speak.
I shall allow questions on the statement to run for a further 15 minutes. I hope that we shall then have a short period of business questions because we should reach the main business by 5 o'clock.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Returning to the subject of support from our European colleagues for the war effort, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, while Conservative MEPs wholeheartedly support the Government's position and are doing all that they can to persuade their European colleagues to do likewise, the Labour MEPs en bloc do not even support the official Labour party policy and are actively discouraging their European colleagues from supporting the war effort?

Mr. King: I am sorry to hear that. I did not respond to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). At a time when our forces are in the Gulf engaged in a dangerous conflict, I respect the position adopted by the Opposition on the matter. I am sorry that Labour Members of the European Parliament are not able to adopt the same position. Perhaps they are a little far away from the United Kingdom. They are very much out of step with the overwhelming opinion of the British people.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that diplomatic efforts will be redoubled, possibly through Tehran but also through whichever channels offer themselves, before we initiate a

major commitment of our land forces to a land war from which shattered bodies would start to come home in horrendous and unacceptable numbers?

Mr. King: Our whole aim was, first, to avoid any conflict. Now that, regrettably, we find ourselves in this position, unless we are prepared to accept the aggression against Kuwait and what would clearly be the continuing expansion of Iraq and its particularly evil regime, we must face up to the reality of conflict, as the hon. Gentleman understands. That being the case, we are anxious to find ways of minimising casualties. We hope that it will be possible to do that. That is why the air campaign has been structured as it has. It is the first stage of what we hope will be the speedy liberation of Kuwait with the minimum casualties, not just among our forces—which is important —but among the people in Kuwait.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), on the firm way in which he condemned to the former Iraqi ambassador the treatment apparently meted out to allied prisoners of war? Will he confirm from the Dispatch Box that those who place prisoners of war in a place of danger, as well as those who ordered them to be placed there, will be brought before an international war crimes tribunal regardless of the outcome of the conflict?

Mr. King: We are taking a careful look at the conduct of any people involved in the conflict who may be in breach of conventions or international law. In the early days, when we had the outrageous treatment of hostages before the conflict started, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reminded people that under international law every individual is responsible for his actions.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the war aims of Britain and the United States do not include either the invasion and destruction of Iraq as a country or the use of nuclear weapons in the prosecution of the conflict?

Mr. King: I have already made it clear that our aims are the aims which are set out in the United Nations resolutions. They have not changed. They remain our objectives. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We seek no acquisition of their territory. We make those points clear. We have to seek the earliest possible implementation of the United Nations resolutions. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend convey the thanks of the House to the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association and to district headquarters, including the western district office which is based in my constituency, for the assistance that they are giving to Gulf support groups? Many wives of service men are giving up a great deal of their time, at considerable expense in telephone calls, to pull the families together so that they may share their concerns and news of their loved ones. It is an important morale booster to the troops to know that this is going on at home and that so many people in his Department are assisting them.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning SSAFA, not just because of what it is doing now. It will be an abiding encouragement to our forces to


know not just that SSAFA is there during the present crisis but that its work will go on day in, day out in the years ahead. Certainly its work is beyond praise.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the past month I have been told constantly that I speak only for myself? I accept that. Is he also aware that I suspect that I speak for all my Scottish colleagues when I dissociate us from the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? I doubt seriously that the Iraqis will ask whether men are Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh before they shoot them.
Is the Secretary of State really using the comparison of our troops in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, with our troops in the Gulf for his pathetic approach to free telephone calls? Is he aware that when the open golf championship is played at St. Andrews, British Telecom can put in, overnight, 200 extra lines? When we walk along the Embankment, we can hardly get through because of all the British Telecom lines into the Secretary of State's own Department. Yet he is telling British troops that they cannot make free telephone calls home. Is not the position the same as with the poll tax—"It is only delayed; you will pay it when you get back. Lay down your lives and the Tories will have your money"?

Mr. King: I am disappointed in the hon. Member, who is an old pal. That is a disgraceful way to behave. We have addressed the matter seriously. It is easy to shout for free everything. The Americans tried it. The system broke down and the congestion was appalling. The Americans found that it was fairer for people to make a contribution, which helped to ensure that the maximum number of people could make calls. This is not Glasgow. It is not a matter of linking up to the golf course in St. Andrews. This is out in the desert, in forward positions. There is huge congestion. [Interruption.] I do not regard this as a laughing matter.
We are trying to do the best we can for our forces. Hon. Members should understand that the telephone system, with its limited range, has to cover 500,000 American troops, all wishing to ring home, more than 40,000 British troops and more than 10,000 French troops. The extra congestion poses major problems. There may be cheap publicity in appearing to stand up for our boys, but we are genuinely trying to do the best we can. The messages coming back are that the boys think that the present arrangement is fair.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Although it came rather later than might have been desirable, will my right hon. Friend warmly welcome the German Chancellor's clear statement that Germany would regard an attack on Turkey as an attack on NATO and, therefore, a genuine matter for German contribution? If that is allied with the German Defence Minister's statement that NATO is required because of the uncertainty in the Soviet Union, it is clear that the united Germany understands the role of NATO and is willing to play its part in NATO activities against possible out-of-area conflicts such as that in the Gulf.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House will have appreciated the positive statements made by Chancellor Kohl. I have also talked to my counterpart, the reconfirmed Defence Minister, Gerhard Stoltenberg, and I

am grateful for the support that the Germans are giving us, not merely the funds to which I referred today, but the significant assistance in kind as well.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the main lessons of the past two days of land fighting is that whatever else the war may be it will not be short, sharp and quick? Does the right hon. Gentleman now understand that not only must allied commanders resist being panicked into an early land war, but allied politicians must do everything in their power to avoid the necessity for a land war at all? Therefore, will he tell the House what he and other Ministers have done to open up diplomatic channels with Baghdad to secure the negotiated withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait so that they do not have to resort further to the carnage and killing to which he did not refer but which we all know has been taking place in the Gulf area for the past two weeks?

Mr. King: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said. I have made it clear that we sought every way at the United Nations—[Interruption.] I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports the United Nations. He knows perfectly well that the United Nations made every effort that it could to avoid conflict in the Gulf. It failed and it took the action to which it believed there was no alternative. We all regret it, but I still hope that, provided we stick to the campaign, we will achieve a reasonably early solution without the sort of casualties to which he refers. That is certainly our determination. The conflict can be ended now if Saddam Hussein immediately removes from Kuwait, ends the aggression and gives the clear assurance that he has no future aggressive intentions.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of the British people believe that there will be peace in the middle east only when Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and, to that end, it will be necessary to do more than just evict the Iraqis from Kuwait?

Mr. King: I have made it clear that there is no point—well, not no point, but that it will be of limited benefit to liberate Kuwait, with the pain and difficulty involved, if it does not stay liberated. These are serious issues and the House, the country, the United Nations and the world are starting seriously to debate what would be the best approach to the eventualities that we may face at that time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Partly since the effects of Chernobyl did not respect human frontiers, will the Secretary of State give us the facts on the damage to nuclear installations? Is there a radiation, Chernobyl-like problem? Does that go into, for instance, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Iran? What do we know about the effects of the dispersal of biological weapons? Those who bomb biological agent factories had better be clear about what the dispersal effects may be.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that before any of those attacks could be contemplated, it was necessary to conduct the most thorough research into the methods of attack to minimise the risk of contamination outside the sites or even outside the buildings. The information available to me is that that has been achieved. General Schwarzkopf was asked this question and he gave a similar answer. Detailed research was conducted into the weather conditions that should apply, the time of day and


the temperature at which attacks should be conducted and the method of attack that should be used against the building concerned.
This highlights the contrast between the way in which our air campaign has been conducted and the Iraqis' indiscriminate attacks with missiles. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will approve of that contrast. I know that he disapproves of Iraq's having nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and stores and that, therefore, he understands the importance of ensuring that those weapons be eliminated and that the elimination be carried out in the most painstaking way to minimise the risk of contamination.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has quite rightly stressed the importance, in moral terms, of the postal services to our forces in the Gulf. The matter has been raised in the House on many occasions. May I say how pleased people are at what the Post Office has now decided to do and how delighted I personally am that he paid tribute to United Carriers. But why is the Post Office always the tail-end Charlie? Why cannot the Post Office be up front? Why cannot it be the first organisation to provide a parcel post service to our forces at a very low rate?

Mr. King: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. I shall ensure that his remarks are conveyed to the chairman of the Post Office, who, from my personal knowledge of him, will deeply resent the "tail-end Charlie" accusation but will, instead, be first-past-the-post Nick.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that those hon. Members who have not been called to put questions on this statement will have some priority next time.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Please, no points of order.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill.
TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, consideration of Lords amendments to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
Second Reading of the Namibia Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Crisis in Training".
Afterwards, there will be a debate entitled "The Neglect of British Science and Science Education".
Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill.
FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Technology Group Bill.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 February to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 18 January, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on proposals relating to rules for the application of levy in the milk and milk products sector.

[European Standing Committee A Wednesday 6 February

Relevant European Community Document

Unnumbered Milk Quotas: definition

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-vii (1990-91)]

Dr. John Cunningham: May I first thank the Leader of the House for arranging the important statement that has been made today by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him for an assurance that the House will have the benefit of regular statements bringing us up to date about circumstances in the Gulf—not just for the benefit of hon. Members, although that is very important, but also for the benefit of the public at large?
When can we expect a debate on the Scottish Rate Support Grant Order? We have debated the proposals for England and Wales already. It is very important to Scotland that we should have an early opportunity to debate the impact of poll tax there. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assure us that such an opportunity will be provided soon.
In June last year, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Leader of the House published proposals on the means of dealing with private Bills in the House, and called for comments. Has the Leader of the House had


a chance to assess the responses that he has received? Can he give any indication as to when we shall have an opportunity to consider any proposals that he may make for new ways of dealing with private business? I understand that this will require primary legislation. Can the Leader of the House give any indication when the House may expect such proposals?
We now know that Budget day will be 19 March, but we have not yet had an opportunity to debate the Chancellor's autumn statement of last year. It would be rather odd—indeed, unsatisfactory—if we were to debate the Chancellor's autumn statement just a day or two before the presentation of his Budget. I understand the Government's reluctance to arrange such a debate, particularly as the country slides deeper and deeper into a damaging and debilitating recession, but I must press the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on the autumn statement as quickly as possible. It is a matter of great importance to us all.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about statements on the Gulf situation. As I have told him, we are all anxious to ensure that the House is kept fully informed—I take his point about the wider audience—whenever appropriate. I hope that the fact that this week we have had two statements and lengthy periods of questions on them shows that we certainly intend to fulfil that commitment.
With regard to the Scottish RSG order, I have to be careful about making any predictions. In this job I have learnt quite rapidly that things can arise that upset what one originally intended to do. I hope that it will be possible to deal with this matter in the week beginning 11 February.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of private Bills procedure. This is an important subject, in which a number of hon. Members take an interest. I welcome the opportunity to make the position clear. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the Government published last summer a consultation document entitled "Private Bills and New Procedures". This resulted in over 100 responses broadly in favour of a new system. The primary legislation required to implement the proposed changes will be complex, and it will not be ready for introduction in the present Session. However, subject to the usual reservations about anticipating the contents of future Queen's Speeches, I can say that such a Bill should be ready for introduction at the earliest opportunity.
I have also been discussing with the Chairman of Ways and Means a number of possible changes to Standing Orders for the handling of private business. It is our agreed aim that these should be put before the House by Easter and that, if approved, they should come into operation at the start of next Session. This will, I hope, give all involved and interested in private Bills adequate notice before new Bills are prepared and deposited. In conjunction with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I shall ensure that the House has time to study the proposals before they are moved.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the autumn statement, I can tell him that there is certainly no reluctance to debate these matters. Indeed, in recent weeks we have had a number of debates on the economy. However, now that the Select Committee on the Treasury

and Civil Service has reported, I recognise the importance of getting on with that debate, and I hope that I shall be able to cover it in my next business statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is important business before us today and considerable pressure from Members who want to speak. I shall allow questions to continue until 5.5 pm, and then we really will have to move on. I hope that those hon. Members who were called to put questions on the statement about the Gulf will not seek to participate again at this stage. That would help.

Mr. David Harris: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to take a preliminary look at the experience of the two European Standing Committees this week. If not, may I draw his attention to two potential problems? The first concerns the availability of documents, in view of the fact that these Committees will do tremendously important work. The second concerns the composition of the Committees. Given the nature of their work, I wonder whether he might consider increasing the size of the Committees. I think that this will be an important matter.

Mr. MacGregor: I said when we debated these Committees recently that it was important that we be ready to review them. I referred not only to a major review of how things have been going but also to a preparedness to review things that occur in the Committees from time to time. I shall certainly look into my hon. Friend's point about documents. The composition of the Committees is a matter on which we shall have to keep a careful watch.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Despite the fact that my Northern Ireland colleagues and I have supported fully the Government's policy in relation to the Gulf, we deplore the fact that we have not had sufficient opportunity to ensure that proper tribute is paid to Northern Ireland service men—Catholic and Protestant—who are serving loyally with British forces there. I trust that such an opportunity will be afforded at the earliest possible date. We also want an early opportunity to learn whether the Leader of the House is satisfied with the Irish Government's contribution to the campaign.

Mr. MacGregor: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am sure that he will have an opportunity to repeat his comments in future debates on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence would want to join me in paying tribute for all that is being done by the forces from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that the operation of the new European Standing Committees should be reconsidered. Given that we are trying to improve scrutiny procedures, will my right hon. Friend re-examine the question of right hon. and hon. Members being able to make telephone calls on dedicated lines, and of being able to send mail to the European institutions at the usual postage rate, using official envelopes? I remind my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question would be fair. There is great pressure on time today.

Mr. Dykes: Other long questions have been asked, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I know, but the hon. Member must have consideration for his colleagues.

Mr. MacGregor: The European Standing Committees are a new experiment. They are important not only in maintaining close scrutiny over European legislation but in relation to working late hours in the Chamber. I accept that, because they are new, it will be important to monitor them carefully to ensure that we continue to get them right. As to my hon. Friend's second point, the question of communications facilities will go before the Services Committee shortly.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for a debate on small firms, particularly in view of the record number of liquidations and bankruptcies, and of the penal and punitive interest rates, which are forcing them out of existence? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter from the president of Bradford chamber of commerce to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he refers to the
increasing and damaging pressure being put on small manufacturing firms".
It is clear that the concern expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends is more widespread, and that there should be a debate on that topic.

Mr. MacGregor: I would love to go into the whole argument about small firms, but I will not do so now in view of time constraints. Right hon. and hon. Members had an opportunity to discuss that issue in economic debates in the past, but I do not doubt that it could be raised again in future debates.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the second debate next Wednesday will provide an opportunity to discuss the possible threat to nuclear physics in the United Kingdom, as a result of our ever-increasing contribution to CERN, the European centre for nuclear research?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, any matters relating to science can be raised in that debate.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House urgently arrange a debate on the prosecution of the Gulf war? A business motion on today's Order Paper will allow right hon. and hon. Members to remain in the House all night to debate the burning topic of ministerial salaries and pensions, yet the time allowed for questions on the statement today by the Secretary of State for Defence was insufficient to allow all right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to contribute to do so.
A further debate on the Gulf would provide the Secretary of State for Defence with an opportunity to re-read yesterday's Evening Standard, which publicised a report, obviously cleared by military censors, in which Colonel Reisch, who leads the American pilots, said that the bombing of Iraqi soldiers as they prayed by the roadside was "a fun mission". Is that what the war is about—having fun by blowing up people at prayer?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows full well the seriousness of the situation, and the objectives of allied action have been spelt out on many occasions. There have been two recent debates, but I am prepared to consider

another when the need arises. The two long statements made this week should indicate that we are making every effort to ensure that the House is kept fully informed.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Last night, the Government forced through the House, with a miserable majority, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. That legislation, for which only 90 minutes of debate was allowed, will radically alter Northern Ireland's health service, to its detriment, and to that of the people who use it. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time next week for a debate, in which I could urge the Government to give people the right to vote in a local referendum before a hospital is permitted to opt out of the health service? I am thinking particularly of the Ulster hospital in Dundonald, in my constituency.

Mr. MacGregor: Right hon. and hon. Members had more than one and a half hours to consider such matters last night. There are considerable pressures on the business of the House, so debates must be contained. I must tell my hon. Friend that I see no possibility of a further debate next week.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House seriously and urgently reconsider giving Government time to another debate on the Gulf? Members of Parliament number more than 650, yet the overwhelming majority of them have been denied an opportunity to express their views about that serious war. Today's statement and questions lasted more than an hour, yet several hon. Members were denied an opportunity to speak—notably the dissenting voices among them. Given that 8 million or 9 million British people oppose the war, if the objectives change and it becomes clear that the destruction of Iraq—with all the casualties that would involve—is the Government's new policy, support for the war will disappear like snowflakes on a boiler. For God's sake give us a chance to express the views of the men and women who are against the war. The Leader of the House has a responsibility to do that, and I hope that he will grant that request.

Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the direction in which public opinion will go. I think that public opinion is very clear. As to parliamentary opinion, there have been two votes recently, in which right hon. and hon. Members were able to declare their position. I can add nothing to my earlier remarks about opportunities for discussion and debate in the House in future weeks.

Mr. David Nicholson: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate soon on early-day motion 372?
[That this House notes with concern that the good work done by the Taunton Association for the Homeless, which has been providing hostel accommodation for 15 years, is in danger because of the Government's decision to withdraw the hostel's deficit grant; and calls on the Government to ensure funds are available to secure the position of this voluntary organisation.]
That motion, which is in the name of several Opposition Members, concerns Taunton Association for the Homeless in my constituency. While I welcome the interest that those hon. Members have shown in that excellent voluntary organisation, such a debate would enable me to point out that I raised the problem with Ministers before the new year. I received an excellent and


helpful reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), which gives the opportunity of funds for that organisation. I may point out that, in that respect, as in others, the Labour party is out of date.

Mr. MacGregor: I have read early-day motion 372, and my hon. Friend has already made some good points in relation to it. He will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced very early this year new and improved arrangements for the capital and revenue funding for special needs provision by housing associations. Over the next two years, we will more than double the available resources for revenue support, which will safeguard schemes already in receipt of grant and provide support for a continuing programme of new schemes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange a statement next week on the money allocated by Germany to Britain in the mercenary Gulf war? Germany lost the last war, but now the British Government are going cap in hand to the losers—who are now the winners, supposedly—to beg money, grovelling at the feet of the Germans in trying to provide the necessary finances. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, within 24 hours of the ink being dry on that £275 million allocation, the Germans increased their interest rates, with the consequence that they made more money on the exchanges than the value of their contribution? The net result is that, 24 hours later, we are even worse off. Will the Leader of the House also say what the Marquess of Queensberry rules are in respect of B52 carpet bombing?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman asks the most tortuous questions. Earlier this afternoon, he received very clear answers from my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of the German contribution.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I ask my right hon. Friend to anticipate the return to the Floor of the House of the Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing) Bill, which is aimed at reducing casualties and offending. Given the short ten-minute debate and Division, and the short debate in Committee without a Division on whether or not it would be better to encourage a change of behaviour or to take more police action, may the House have the opportunity for a full debate on Report? That would allow right hon. and hon. Members to decide whether it would be better to reduce bad behaviour, which is my view, or that more police action is the way to stop people offending—which is the view of the shadow Transport Minister.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important Bill. At this stage, I cannot say exactly what arrangements will be made when it returns to the Floor of the House, but I hope that there will be a full opportunity to debate the important matters that he has mentioned.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware from his own experience that British agriculture is facing

its worst financial crisis for 50 years. To try to restore confidence in that ailing industry, will he find time to debate Government policies?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the key issues here is the proposal that the Commission is discussing at present relating to further Community reforms. I understand that the Commission is meeting today to finalise its proposals, with a view to presenting them to the Council of Agriculture meeting next week. I think that he will be well aware from the responses made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in questions last week of our attitude to a number of those proposals, and of our determination to try to fight to protect British interests and to remove the discriminatory elements in the proposals, if there are any. I am sure that there will be an opportunity to explore these matters in some form or another when the position becomes somewhat clearer, and I shall bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend has said that European Standing Committee A will consider agriculture matters. Will he also find an early opportunity to allow the House to debate agriculture and farm incomes? He knows better than most of the Government's efforts on behalf of farmers but, bearing in mind the uncertainty over GATT and over EC reform proposals, would it not be helpful to have a debate in the House on that subject?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right to add the GATT round, because it is another major aspect of this issue. We are somewhat unclear exactly what the proposals will be, so it is important to wait and see how matters develop, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 364, "Privatisation for Crown Suppliers Transport", and the allegation that I have made about a prospective buyer, Mr. Bill Pinkney?
[That this House notes a series of parliamentary replies from the Parliamentary Secretary, Department of the environment, dated 24th January relating to the sale of Crown Suppliers transport section and investigations into the activities of civil servant Mr. Bill Pinkney the prospective buyer; notes the evasive nature of the Ministerial reply, Official Report, column 27, which refers to 'the Crown Suppliers following up the matters arising from that audit'; notes that under the general heading of 'Disciplinary matters', the Crown Suppliers after a full investigation in 1990 did find that the level of Mr. Pinkney's behaviour fell below the level which was expected of an official; notes that the investigation found overpayments, dubious entries, unauthorised payments and a failure to declare a conflict of interest with a company called Turnbulls; notes that the Chief Executive of Crown Suppliers did consider formal charges but decided not to proceed with them as Ministers did not wish to prejudice the sale of the transport section to Mr. Bill Pinkney and his associates; notes that attempts by senior civil servants under instruction from Ministers to hide away the nature of irregularities and disciplinary offences were orchestrated so as to avoid embarrassment to the Government; questions the role of Shandwick, the public relations company, in preparing grossly misleading press


releases relating to the sell off to a so-called management buy-out which is not a buy-out at all but an offer funded by a North of England second hand car dealer; and unreservedly condemns Ministers for their shameful actions.]
Can we have an assurance that, if Mr. Pinkney is a successful purchaser of the transport section, an announcement will be made not in a written reply but orally at the Dispatch Box so that we can ask questions relating to the activities of that gentleman?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman has already been asking questions on that matter. As far as the early-day motion is concerned, I must make it clear that Ministers at the Department of the Environment are not generally consulted about disciplinary matters, and were not consulted about Mr. Pinkney's case. However, appropriate action was taken by the Crown Suppliers' management. Nor have Ministers issued any instructions about the treatment of any irregularities involving Mr. Pinkney.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering a bid for Mr. Pinkney's team for the Crown Suppliers' vehicle hire and maintenance business, and his conclusions will be announced as soon as possible. Members of the team, sources of finance, control and structure of the proposed new company will be included among the factors to be taken into account in assessing their bid for the business. It would, therefore, be premature to discuss the matter in the House.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about five years since the House had an opportunity to discuss civil aviation policy? Given the current problems facing civil aviation, which have been brought to a head, first by the Civil Aviation Authority's recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport on traffic distribution rules and secondly by the difficulties facing two major American carriers at Heathrow—which introduces the question of successor rights and negotiations with the United States over the Bermuda 2 agreement on bilaterals—it is important that the House has the opportunity to debate these matters. A ferocious debate is taking place outside this Chamber. Surely it is time that we had the opportunity to debate it within this Chamber.

Mr. MacGregor: The second point to which my hon. Friend refers is one of great concern, especially since the United States' delegation was unable to continue negotiations on 30 January because its instructions did not allow it sufficient flexibility to enable a conclusion to be reached on certain matters put to it. It has been made clear that the Government are willing to resume negotiations as soon as the United States wishes to do so. I am aware of the importance of this matter, and of the concern felt by hon. Members, and I shall certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When will the Leader of the House fulfil his long-standing promise to let us debate Lord Cullen's report on the Piper Alpha? Can we have two days for that debate, in view of the complexity of the subject and the wide-ranging interests involved? Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, at this stage in the evening, one question is sufficient.

Mr. MacGregor: I regret that it has not been possible to agree a suitable time for a debate yet. I shall continue to bear the possibility in mind but, knowing the business in front of the House, and especially the need to enable the House to discuss Gulf matters, I do not think that a two-day debate will be possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Currie, but very briefly.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Further to the point about the important European Standing Committees, is my right hon. Friend aware that their first meetings this week were a bit of a shambles? Does he accept that we need bigger Committees, we need Whips, we need the papers in time, and, most important of all, we need to know the timetable so that we know when they will meet, and what they will be discussing in future?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of some of the problems that occurred this week and, as I have already said, we need to be willing to review them. As regards information about the timetable, I hope that the fact that I announce the Standing Committees in the business statement will help.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Reverting to that very subject, is the Lord President aware that last Tuesday's European Standing Committee B disposed of its business, but yesterday my information is that European Standing Committee A did not, and that it decided to sit again—I believe, next Wednesday? Can the Minister tell us about this? Can he confirm that it will sit again? Can he announce when it will do so, and can he confirm that it will not clash with his announcement about that same Committee meeting on Wednesday next?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that that can be sorted out and that the European Standing Committee will meet to complete the other business and also to discuss this other important and urgent matter.

Mr. William McKelvey: When does the Leader of the House expect to be able to comply with the Standing Orders of the House and set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have already said about that matter on a number of occasions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Today the Government tabled a statutory instrument imposing an eight-day continuous ban on the fishing industry. Is the Leader of the House aware that the objections to this statutory instrument by Members with fishing interests involve the fact that it is dangerous, and that it might cost lives? In view of that, will he arrange for a debate in the near future—not in a month's time—so that hon. Members can face up to the question whether it is morally right to impose further dangers upon fishermen at sea?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that the issues involved in this matter have already been debated in the House. I cannot promise a debate next week, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that it has been announced that the cases against 30 Iraqi and Palestinian nationalists detained by the Home Secretary are to be heard during the next three days. These people have not been told of the case against them, except in general terms. They are not allowed legal representation and, even if the tribunal sat for ten hours a day—unusual in legal circles—there would be only about an hour for each case.
I wonder whether requests have been received for the Home Secretary to make a statement, because Britain has set itself high standards in the administration of justice, and natural justice demands that each case be given a thorough hearing. It is for the Home Secretary to maintain those standards, not to short-circuit them. I wonder whether, if a request is made for a statement, or if further explanation is forthcoming from the Government, you will facilitate such a statement.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to grant statements of that kind but for the Leader of the House, who is present and who, I am sure, has heard what has been said.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called all four hon. Members previously, and they will have heard what I said about their other colleagues who wish to participate. However, I have to take points of order, so I shall take Mr. Ross first.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I hesitate to cause delay, but this is a serious matter. The lawyers of the people who will face tribunals, if they go ahead, this weekend will have to find support against the deportation orders from the period of 15, 16 or 17 years while those people were resident in this country, and they do not have enough time. The Home Secretary ought to come here to make a statement to reassure us that the high standards of justice that we expect in this country will be extended to those individuals.

Mr. Speaker: It would have been much more appropriate if matters of this sort had been raised with the Leader of the House during business questions, because he can answer those questions and I cannot answer them as points of order.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that this is on something different.

Mr. Hughes: While I make no complaint, Mr. Speaker, that you quite properly called those hon. Members who rose during the Gulf debate and during business questions or that they raised issues then that they would have raised during the Gulf statement, could you consider those hon. Members who did not seek to rise during the Gulf statement but tried to raise matters during business questions and were not allowed to do so? Indeed, as you said, some of the issues being raised now could have been mentioned during business questions had there been time.

Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion, but I always keep a list of the names of the hon. Members who are called last in business questions so that they will at least be given some priority next time, even if they are not called first. Good luck.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is on that very matter.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, really?

Mr. Cryer: At the conclusion of the Gulf statement, Mr. Speaker, you said that you could not call half a dozen of us, but that there might be other opportunities. The opportunities are limited, however, because—understandably—so many hon. Members wish to speak. You often say in such circumstances that you will bear in mind those who have not been called when another statement is made on the same topic. I hope that you will be able to do that in the event of a future Gulf statement.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that. Lastly, I call Mr. Spearing.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On an unavoidable point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House announce that, next Wednesday, European Standing Committee A would consider two matters: first, the matter that it started to consider yesterday, and, secondly, the question of milk quotas definition, which was referred to in the business statement and in questions.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that the second debate can indeed last for two and a half hours, as provided in Standing Orders? If he cannot give us that assurance, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will lay the necessary business motion to enable it to do so?

Mr. Speaker: What goes on in Standing Committees is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Orders of the Day — Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should like to make two points at the outset. First, the vast majority of the proposals that we are considering today, both in the Bill and in the subsequent motion endorsing the draft regulations, follow Top Salaries Review Body recommendations; secondly, they were made some time ago, so, to put it mildly, we have not shown indecent haste in implementing them. There is no question of our doing hon. Members any favours. The proposals are modest and overdue. As some of the main benefits—taking both together—go to widows of Members, who have often had to make many sacrifices as a result of their parliamentary life and whose rewards would not, I think, be described as great, I hope that we can agree to them tonight.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am sorry to intervene so early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is noteworthy, however, that the Leader of the House is doing something for Ministers, while he must be aware that a large majority of Members want something to be done about their resettlement grant. Surely he should consider that as a matter of urgency.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not think it right to deal with that at the very beginning of my speech, as I am supposed to be dealing with the Bill. I am very much aware of the concern that is felt about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I intend to say something about it later, but I think that it would be better if I confined my initial remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Ray Powell: I do not want to labour the point, but, as 351 hon. Members on both sides of the House signed the early-day motion, I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to pay it due regard in his opening remarks.
May I ask whether it is incumbent on any Member, whether or not he is a Minister—or even Mr. Speaker—to participate in a debate on a Bill as a result of which he will benefit directly? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, be entitled to receive any benefit as a result of the Bill, and will he specify who will receive such benefits?

Mr. MacGregor: I intend to cover the question of resettlement grants in my opening remarks, but I think that it is best for me to do so in an orderly fashion. We are taking the Bill and the motion together, and almost every Member will benefit in one way or another: if we excluded those who will do so, the debate would be very odd.
On behalf of the House, let me thank my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), for all his work. He did a great deal

to bring us to the point that we have reached today. I am very pleased that he is present, and that I am able to say that to him.
As the House will recall, in July 1987 we invited the TSRB to undertake a review of the parliamentary pension scheme, the pensions of the Prime Minister, Speaker and Lord Chancellor and ministerial severance pay. When the TSRB reported in May 1988—let me stress that date—we made it clear in a written answer that we accepted the recommendations. Last January, the House debated that report, together with the Government Actuary's report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund laid before the House in 1989. The Bill implements those TSRB recommendations, together with a number of other items.
We are also making improvements to the parliamentary pension scheme through our regulation—making power under the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. The improvements for Ministers and those for other Members need to be seen as a whole, but procedurally we shall be debating the regulations separately from the Bill. In line with the undertaking given by my predecessor as Leader of the House in May 1987, we have set down the regulations in draft so that Members have an opportunity to comment.
I shall, of course, say more about the regulations when we debate them. I will say now only that I believe that the improvements in the Bill and the regulations strike a fair balance between the interests of Ministers and those of other Members. I believe that I have the full support of the trustees in saying that.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I know that the Bill and the regulations are being taken separately, but surely it would be in the interests of the House for us to be able to debate both at the same time.

Mr. MacGregor: As it is the normal procedure, I intended first to speak to the Bill and deal with the resettlement grant, and then to deal with the details of the regulations when we reach them. I think that this is really a matter for the Chair.

Mr. David Harris: My right hon. Friend has said that he is prepared to consider Members' views on the draft regulations. Can he give those of us who are former MEPs an assurance that he will examine the provision in the regulations, as they are currently drafted, that service as an MEP will not count towards the early-retirement provisions?

Mr. MacGregor: The MEP point is in the regulations, not the Bill. I will certainly deal with it, and I want to hear the views of hon. Members before I reply to the debate on the regulations. I think that that would be the right time, because the Bill deals with other matters.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: When it was suggested that both matters should be debated together, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to cast some doubt on the position. He said that it was a matter for the Chair, but, according to my interpretation of the procedure, it should depend on the will of the House; and, judging by the early-day motion referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), there is a strong feeling in the House that the two matters should be debated together.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Perhaps I can be of assistance. The House determined that the two matters should be taken separately, but a broad-brush approach would be helpful, as it would make a wide debate possible. I am sure that it would help hon. Members on both sides of the House if the Leader of the House were able to make some progress with his speech, as we would then know his intentions.

Mr. MacGregor: Let me make my intentions clear; then perhaps I shall be able to say something about the Bill. I intend to talk about the Bill on Second Reading, but I am aware that the issue of the resettlement grant is of great concern to the House. I suspect that that is the reason for this afternoon's sizeable attendance. I am also aware of the number of signatories to the early-day motion, and I therefore intend to talk about the matter in the current debate. It would probably be wise for me to deal separately with the many detailed points relating to the regulations; otherwise I might speak for rather a long time now, and I consider it important for hon. Members to have a chance to participate.
I intend to go briefly through the various items in the Bill. I shall speak at greater length on the points that are of interest especially to many Opposition Members.
Clause 1 makes changes to the statutory ex officio pensions paid to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has been entitled to a life pension since before 1830, while Mr. Speaker's pension until 1972, granted to each retiring Speaker personally by a special Act of Parliament, dates from 1832. The statutory pension for the Prime Minister dates from 1937. The justification for these special arrangements is the recognition of the high responsibilities of the three offices. The pensions are payable not out of the parliamentary contributory pension fund but out of the Consolidated Fund.
Arrangements for these pensions were consolidated in the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 which fixed the Prime Minister's pension at 15/40ths, Mr. Speaker's at 20/40ths and the Lord Chancellor at 17/40ths of salary. These fractions have been maintained since then whenever salaries have been increased.
The TSRB in its 1988 report recommended that instead of the different pension ratios for each of the offices, current and future office holders should be entitled to pensions of one half of their final salary. Clause I therefore amends the 1972 Act so that the office holders all receive a common pension ratio of one half of final salary.
Currently there is a restriction on the pensions increase that may be paid to former office holders. For example, the basic pension of a former Prime Minister is uprated under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 until it reaches the level the incumbent Prime Minister would receive if he retired. At that point the pension is capped, and a former Prime Minister is entitled to no further pensions increase unless the Prime Minister's salary rises. This penalises former Prime Ministers who have not received the annual pensions increase uprating received by all other public sector pensioners. The TSRB recommended that this restriction should be lifted and we shall be laying regulations under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to give effect to that recommendation. Taking that into account, and the previous operation of the capping restriction, we felt that we should take the opportunity in this Bill to set the pension level of all former Prime Ministers at the same

figure as the present Prime Minister would be entitled to. Accordingly, clause 1(5) provides for this. That will be the basis on which the pension will henceforward be fully index-linked.
Clause 2 amends the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 so that regulations may be made to permit the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker to participate in the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The TSRB argued that there was no good reason for the exclusion and that the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker should be given the option of participating. The TSRB concluded, however, that this participation should not operate retrospectively. The regulations will cover that point.
Clause 3 relates the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of the Lord Chief Justice. The House may recall that the 1983 TSRB report recommended that the Lord Chancellor should receive a slight salary lead over the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his role as head of the judiciary. The lead was established at £2,000 and remained at that level until last year. Each increase to the Lord Chancellor's salary currently requires a Lord Chancellor's salary order which is subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. To implement the salary lead in legislation will end the need for an annual order. I am sure the House will agree that that is sensible.
Clause 4 deals with the May 1988 TSRB recommendation that the severance payment scheme for Lords Ministers should be extended to other Ministers and paid office holders, with certain provisos. The TSRB recommended that on losing office, for whatever reason, Commons Ministers should receive a severance payment based on three months' net parliamentary income and that Ministers not in either House of Parliament should receive three months' ministerial salary—just as Lords Ministers already do. It also recommended that the two-year qualifying period for Lords Ministers should be dropped, that the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker should be excluded from these arrangements and that the Lord Chancellor should cease to be eligible because of preferential pension arrangements.
I believe that the justification for this will be well understood. Ministers are often required to relinquish outside appointments when they are appointed. That can often mean a substantial loss of income, in addition to a far busier working schedule.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman says that he believes that the justification for this will be easily understood. May I disabuse him of that notion? No worker in my constituency will easily understand that when a Minister gets the sack his or her salary continues for another three months while the salaries of workers who are sacked stop there and then.

Mr. MacGregor: The TSRB recommended that and made it clear that it saw it as a severance payment scheme. That is what I believe it is.
On leaving office a Minister faces an immediate loss of income. It will normally take time to pick up the threads of a previous career, or in other ways to build up replacement income. The TSRB believed, and the Government agree, that modest severance payments are entirely reasonable to bridge the gap.
Clause 5 introduces a new allowance for Lords Ministers and paid office holders. For a number of years Governments have experienced difficulties in recruiting


and retaining Ministers and paid office holders from another place. One of the main reasons why peers have been unwilling to accept office has been the adverse financial pressures which ensue.
On appointment a Lords Minister or paid officer holder not only may suffer a fall in salary as a result of relinquishing outside appointments but he or she is also deprived of the overnight subsistence allowance that they could claim as a Back-Bench peer. At the same time most Ministers find it necessary to set up a London base, if they do not already live here, in order to meet the heavy demands of their jobs.
Under current arrangements, Ministers and paid office holders from both sides of another place receive no assistance towards running a second home in London. This is a long-standing anomaly which we propose to remedy by the introduction of a night subsistence allowance for Lords Ministers and paid office holders. In all cases it will replace the current London supplement. We propose that the allowance will be based on the overnight element of the peers' reimbursement allowance. We propose to increase the allowance in line with the Back-Bench peers' overnight allowance by Order in Council. We believe that the introduction of this new allowance will ease significantly the difficulty we have had in recruiting and retaining Lords Ministers in recent years.
The Bill makes no direct improvement to Members' pensions as such. These are being made by the regulations that we shall consider later this evening. However, clause 6 is of considerable relevance to Members' pension arrangements.
The House will recall that in 1989, following the Government Actuary's report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund, the Exchequer contribution was set at 4·4 per cent. while the Member contribution remained at 9 per cent. In the pensions debate last January, the strength of feeling in the House on the issue of the balance of contributions was made very clear, and my predecessor undertook to consider in what terms the matter should be referred to the TSRB. Following consultation with the trustees, but subject to the views of the House, I have agreed the terms of reference with the trustees. They were set out in my written answer of 24 January.
The House may find it helpful if I explain the background. Briefly, the Member contribution to the PCPF is set on the basis necessary to fund benefits over the long term, leaving aside surpluses and deficits. The Government Actuary's department, on the basis of the cost of those known benefits, values the scheme every three years. Since the Member contribution is fixed, the Government Actuary's department is able to stipulate the Exchequer contribution as a residual. The Government Actuary's department then takes account of any surplus or deficit in the fund and adjusts the Exchequer contribution accordingly to produce the rate actually paid. The effect is that the Exchequer funds deficits but, where there is a surplus, enjoys a contributions holiday. In other words, the Exchequer contribution is not a fixed item but varies, depending on the state of the fund. There is either a holiday or a reduction.
The trustees and others, however, take the view that the character of the scheme to which the Exchequer makes contributions in this way—taking the benefit of surpluses and making good any deficits—should be changed. They argue that it is wrong that the Exchequer contribution may

on occasion be below the Member contribution. Their preference is for a system which has a fixed relationship between the Exchequer and Member contribution—say, in the ratio of 5:3 or 60:40.
One of the merits of the system is that Members enjoy known benefits for known contributions. If we are to make the changes that the trustees want, we need to be clear that Members' contributions would fluctuate possibly sharply and certainly unpredictably. Put simply, Members would lose the present stability and predictability of their contributions—in other words, the fixed price they enjoy for guaranteed benefits.
Now is not the time to discuss the substance of all this but it is clearly important to make clear the Government's position, which is that we believe that the system works fairly. However, I accept that there can be different points of view. I am aware of that and have been looking into it in considerable detail. So we have agreed to refer the matter to the TSRB.

Sir Peter Hordern: Our contribution of 9 per cent. is the highest of any privately-funded pension scheme in the country and it should never have reached that position. When my right hon. Friend refers the matter to the TSRB, will he make it clear that it is not simply a matter of wanting to alter our contribution so that there can be flexible arrangements in the future, but that 9 per cent. is too high and should never have been the position? That is what the TSRB should be investigating.

Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that I do not have the same detailed knowledge of pension schemes elsewhere as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I am aware of his great knowledge of them. I cannot confirm precisely whether a 9 per cent. contribution is higher than that for any other scheme in the country. If I were to say so, and then discovered that that was not the case, no doubt people would write about it. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that in my knowledge it is a high contribution in comparison with other schemes.
Clearly, in referring this matter to the TSRB, it will be open to anyone, including the trustees, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham is a distinguished member, to make representations about the balance of contributions, the system and the points made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Orme: May I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern)? We have looked into the 9 per cent. contribution and compared it with the private and public sector. It is almost impossible to find anything comparable with our scheme. It is completely wrong. Members feel that it is a gross injustice and I hope that when the Leader of the House refers the issue to the TSRB, as he has rightly said that he will, he recommends that it looks seriously at the matter.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already explained in a written answer the way in which we are proposing to refer this to the TSRB. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) knows that the terms of reference have already been agreed with the trustees. In fact, I made some changes to the terms of reference to incorporate recommendations of the trustees. I intend this to be a serious reference, as I do another matter that I shall come to. The TSRB will look


at the views expressed in the debate and it will be open to the trustees and others to make their representations known.

Sir Norman Fowler: In referring the matter to the TSRB, what view will the Government express? Will they be suggesting, as my right hon. Friend appeared to a moment ago, that this is a fair system? If they do that, I do not think that they will carry the House with them.

Mr. MacGregor: Since the Government have put this scheme before the House, clearly we shall make clear why we did so and why we believe that the current scheme has certain merits. By referring the matter, the TSRB will be able to make up its mind about whether it wants to propose any changes. I want to make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that I am doing so in order that the strong feelings in the House can be conveyed to the TSRB. I can go no further than that today.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I have been listening carefully to what the Lord President has had to say. He mentioned that the Government were a little fearful of the amount of finance involved in the fund. Some such things have been said in the past and the right hon. Gentleman almost said it today. The Government are more or less deciding their contribution to the pension fund and they feel that it should be smaller than it is now. Hon. Members are correct in their belief that 9 per cent. is far too high. Incidentally, during the passage of the Employment Bill I can remember the ex-Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) who is sitting below the Gangway, talking about pension funds outside the House and what workers should be doing to get into such funds. They were much better than the House of Commons fund.
I have not yet heard the Lord President refer to the people who have to carry out the job in the pensions office across the road after we have debated and decided on the regulations and so on. They do a first-class job in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point and I intended to mention that later. However, I am happy to do so now.
I do not recall saying what the hon. Gentleman attributed to me at the beginning of his intervention about the finances of the fund. The TSRB recommended the current position. The Government accepted that and clearly believe that the scheme has been fair up to now. I am aware of the depth of feeling in the House because I have consulted widely before reaching this point and those feelings are clear from the reactions in the Chamber today. Therefore, I think that we are taking the right step by referring this to the TSRB so that it can be looked at again. It will enable all those who are putting points to me now to put the same points in detail to the TSRB.

Mr. Ray Powell: It has already been said that we did not have much of a hand in deciding that we would contribute 9 per cent. I have my salary slip, which all hon. Members will have received yesterday or today. My basic superannuation contribution is £217·28, and that is for my wife to know if no one else. With all due respect, during the

five-week-per-month period I would be paying £43 or £44 a week and during the 10 four-week-per-month period I would be paying £52 a week. I have consulted organisations outside to see what benefits I would receive if I contributed to a private scheme. I was told that on all the benefits currently available to me as a Member of Parliament and those contained in the Bill I would receive nearly one quarter again. The TSRB should consider that anomaly. The contribution to the majority of occupational pension schemes is 4·4 per cent. by employees and 8· per cent. by employers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern, but this is an intervention, not a speech. Is the hon. Gentleman coming to his final point?

Mr. Powell: This is my final point. The Leader of the House mentioned 40 per cent. and 60 per cent., but he did not say who is paying 40 per cent. and who is paying 60 per cent. It is essential for us to know that.

Mr. MacGregor: In a debate such as this, the Leader of the House is in a slightly unusual position, because he is putting forward the position not only of the Government but of those who fund some part of our pension contributions—the taxpayer. We must have a mind to that and be fair about it.
Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I received a pay slip yesterday. I, too, pay a Members' contribution of 9 per cent. I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but we must be careful how we approach these matters, which is why it is right to ask the TSRB objectively to consider the argument that is being advanced and how outside schemes operate.
I mentioned ratios to make a distinction between the current system and one with fixed ratios, which is the preference of the trustees. Hon. Members can put their views to the TSRB, which will then make a decision.

Mr. John Garrett: The Minister has given an eccentric description of his job, which is why I suspect that he will not be a very good Leader of the House. His job is to represent Members of Parliament. It is the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the taxpayer. In this instance, the right hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Executive but is representing the House.

Mr. MacGregor: That is what I am doing by putting this issue to the TSRB, with a recommendation and terms of reference that have been agreed with the trustees.
The Government will make clear what they see as some of the merits of the present system. It is perfectly clear that everyone will be entitled to put his own case. I know that the trustees will do so and hon. Members, too, will be free to put their views. It will then be for the TSRB to make recommendations. If it were to recommend a change in the present arrangements, it would then be for the Government to decide whether to put them before the House.
If, for example, the TSRB were to recommend, and the Government were to accept, a change to a fixed relationship between the Exchequer and the Member's contribution, that would require the Leader of the House to fix the Exchequer as well as the Member's contribution. I do not have that power and it would require new primary legislation.
I have recognised the force of the arguments—the trustrees will agree with me on this—that the parliamentary pension scheme would be unique in requiring primary legislation to make such a detailed change, and that pressures on the parliamentary timetable may delay such possibilities. Under clause 6, therefore, we shall amend the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 to enable us to make changes by regulation if we are persuaded that the system should change. The House will note that the clause is permissive, but I hope that it will agree that this will be a more satisfactory arrangement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having achieved that clause, for which I know the trustrees were pressing? He has been able to take advantage of his more recent association with Treasury officials than mine to coerce a healthy conclusion from that redoubtable organisation. He has been assisted by the fact that hon. Members have been pressing their case on him, as they are pressing him in early-day motion 299 on resettlement allowance.
There is a group that is not well represented in the House—about whom I have felt an uneasy conscience since the time when I held my right hon. Friend's office—on behalf of whom my former Parliamentary Private Secretary intervened a moment ago: those who have combined service as Members of the European Parliament and Members of this House. Some have served here but are now serving in Europe, and vice versa. The salaries of MEPs were fixed precisely parallel to hon. Members' salaries to ensure parity. In one respect, that does not seem to apply—the benefit that they earn at the end of their service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that point seriously. I tried to take it seriously because I felt that it was being under-represented; there are few such creatures sitting on the Benches in the House. Apart from that, I congratulate him on his success. One last heave in respect of those poor fledglings in Strasbourg would be most helpful.

Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that that shows that 1 take seriously my responsibilities as Leader of the House and have endeavoured to achieve the right solutions.
It would probably be best to discuss MEPs in the context of the regulations. It is rather a complex matter, as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, and I have been involved in tortuous examination of it in recent days. It might be best for me to listen to hon. Members and respond in detail later.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the regulation be debatable?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman means the regulation on MEPs. Today we will be debating the draft regulations. The Government will consider the points that are made and introduce regulations later.
The House should know that the GAD is working on the next valuation report, which is expected in the next couple of months. That will yield a new Exchequer contribution. Under the 1987 Act, any change in that contribution can come into effect only at the beginning of the financial year following publication. Thus, if the report were published in, say, late April, the new Exchequer contribution would not take effect until April 1992. My written answer suggested that the TSRB is being asked to

report on this subject by this April. Following consultations on the practicalities of that with the chairman of the TSRB, I am persuaded that we shall have to give more time for the review to be undertaken properly. I propose that it should report as soon as possible—some time in May.
Hon. Members' reactions have shown that it will be necessary for the TSRB to consider much evidence and many representations, and no doubt it will wish to take oral evidence. Its chairman was probably right to say that it is better not to rush the reference and for it to consider all the evidence and to relax the timetable that I proposed in my written answer.
The important point for the House is that, even if the TSRB were to recommend change, and we accepted that, we would be in a position to take the necessary action well before April 1992. That is the important point. Ally change to the Exchequer contribution in the forthcoming report of the GAD could therefore be included in any regulations made under clause 6. I hope that that reassures the House that there is now no question of a lack of power, nor any difficulty of timing.
I know that some hon. Members are keen that the TSRB should examine experience in other countries. As the House will have seen from my answer on 24 January, that is specifically mentioned in the letter that I shall send to the TSRB's chairman. It is only fair to warn the House, however, that because of the tight timescale I doubt that it will be possible for the TSRB to cover this aspect fully before May. That is one of the consequences that we must accept of trying to get the matter resolved as soon as possible.

Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend said that the Government Actuary would report in April and that he would report on the state of the fund as at April or May last year. He will report solely on the relative contributions between Members of Parliament and the Exchequer. What happens when the TSRB considers not only the balance of contributions, but improved benefits, with which the House is concerned, such as the suggestion for up to two thirds for widows? What happens when the TSRB then considers those matters, and reports favourably and recommends that such improvements should be made? Will there be time for the Government Actuary to see what the improvements will cost so that, using the procedure under clause 6, the House may carry forward the recommendation that should be made by the TSRB on the improvements that may be suggested by the House?

Mr. MacGregor: This is a complex matter, so I shall try to go through it with some care. I am anxious that the House should know the position and I do not want to mislead it. The reference to the TSRB is fundamentally on the point about the balance of contributions and whether the system should change. If the TSRB makes such a recommendation and the House accepts it, that will be a big change in the system. As a result of the timing of the next GAD report, there should be no problem about making the change, if that is what is eventually decided, in good time for April 1992 so that the automaticity of anything that the GAD report might say normally under our present arrangements would not apply. In other words, if we do not make a change in the system, there is the automatic effect of the GAD report in April 1992 under our present arrangements. I am satisfied that if we


want to make a change under these proposals—and with the suggested timing—to the TSRB, there will be time to take that into account and that automaticity, if that is how it worked out, would not follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham knows well from his discussions, especially with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East on the changes to these benefits and to the benefits that we shall discuss later, that discussions also took place between the Leader of the House and the trustees. The benefit changes were agreed, and we are now putting them to the House and seeking its agreement. That process could, no doubt, continue, but it would be concurrent with and not part of the change to the overall scheme.
I must warn, as I mentioned earlier, that every change in benefits that relates entirely to a surplus—if there is one—in the last valuation carries through. If there is a change in the valuation subsequently and the surplus disappears, those benefits will still be there, but will have to be paid for. That is where, in a fixed contribution scheme, the contributions might have to rise. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham a clear answer.
Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say something now on the resettlement grant which is the subject of early-day motion 299. The House will be aware that this grant is paid directly from the House of Commons vote and has, therefore, nothing to do with the parliamentary pension fund nor, indeed, with the Bill. Hon. Members will also recall that the TSRB examined the question of the cut-off at age 65 in its last report, the recommendations of which we are now implementing, and that it recommended no changes in the resettlement grant. But the Government must obviously take very seriously an expression of such widespread concern from hon. Members of all parties. I can, therefore, tell the House that we agree that the TSRB should be invited to look again urgently at this matter.
I shall be drawing to the TSRB's attention the strength of feeling in the House that the arguments bear re-examination, especially in view of the unique circumstances which determine the precise timing of the end of a Parliament and therefore, for some hon. Members, the end of a parliamentary career. The trustees were anxious that the TSRB should consider the matter seriously, with an open mind and in a way that ensures that the arguments can be put before it clearly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. I give the House the clear assurance that I will put the request to the TSRB on that basis.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: It is pretty obvious from the number of people here today who are aged well over 50 that they are concerned about the retirement age. Is not it a further disgraceful anomaly that an hon. Member aged 48 or 49 who has done 15 years' service in the House still gets only six months' severance pay when it is virtually impossible for him to go back to his job? This will not affect me or many of my colleagues, but it will affect Conservative Members, who could lose their seats even through a boundary change.
The Leader of the House proposes that Ministers should receive three months' redundancy pay after having had possibly only two years in a ministerial job. They will not be unemployed because they will go back to a

Back-Bencher's salary. In the past, many hon. Members have done 15 years and have lost their seat at the age of 48 or 49, yet they have received only six months' redundancy pay. Surely severance pay should be tied to length of service and, of course, those who serve over the age of 65 must also be considered. Length of service should be tied to severance pay as well as there being a birthday cut-off at the age of 50.

Mr. MacGregor: There is a length of service tie-in. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it applies equally to hon. Members of all parties. I have been referring to early-day motion 299 about which the House is expressing concern. That is why I suggest that the right thing for the House to do is to refer the matter to the TSRB, expressing clearly the strength of concern and asking the TSRB to consider the matter again.
I also recognise that there is concern that the TSRB should report as quickly as possible so that appropriate action may be taken in a timely way. I have, therefore, agreed with the TSRB that I will ask it to report separately on the resettlement grant by the middle of April. I have every reason to believe and expect that the TSRB can meet that demanding time scale. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our thanks to the TSRB for its readiness to deal with these complex and important matters—and especially with early-day motion 299—so speedily.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I declare an interest in that I should be affected by any change here and in that I am now over 70.
When the Leader of the House talks to the TSRB, will he point out that it is no use comparing this pension scheme with a normal one? I mentioned my age. Many of my friends have now been retired for five years. Whether they were in banking, in teaching or anywhere else, they retired at a set age. They realise that a number of hon. Members are over 65 and that it is a different scene.
Some of us may come here at a later age. Parliaments run over a four-year period. People outside sometimes get the wrong end of the stick and compare our jobs with jobs outside. That is why the magic figure of 65 has been used. Will the Leader of the House point out to the TSRB that it should look at the different nature of work here?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's point will be raised by a number of those who make representations to the TSRB. My role as Leader of the House and on behalf of the Government is to say that we shall put these points to the TSRB, and ask it to look at them seriously and in the way that I described a few moments ago. However, my personal view—as I said a moment ago—is that we are in unique circumstances and have a unique job. I agree with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that our position is different.
When Members of Parliament enter a new Parliament, they take a decision for themselves, but they cannot be certain when their employment will terminate. The TSRB should be asked to consider that point, which I recognise.
I should like finally to turn to clause 7, which makes some changes to the Members' fund. This is a statutory fund, administered by trustees, which is able to offer grants to former Members of Parliament or their dependants who experience financial difficulties. It is usual to make changes to the fund from time to time.
The House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 has in particular a hardship provision which permits the trustees,
for the purpose of alleviating special hardship
to make such
payments as they think fit".
This section has not been reviewed for a long time and it seemed right to us and the trustees that we should bring the wording more up to date and, in doing so, cast the trustees' discretion more widely. Under the Bill there will now be no doubt about the trustees' discretion to act where,
having regard to the circumstances of the persons to … whom the payments are to be made",
they judge it right. The decisions on what payments to make and to whom will, of course, be for the trustees alone.
The financial implications of the Bill are small, and are contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum. I should also tell the House, however, that, under Statutory Instrument 1981/748, there is provision for the Treasury to pay to the separate Members' fund up to £215,000 per annum. Currently, £115,000 per annum is made available to that fund. It seemed right to us that, at a time when we were changing the trustees' discretion, we should make the extra £100,000 per annum available, and we propose to do so.
All these matters have been considered extensively by the TSRB, and by the Government in discussion with the trustees and others. The measures in the Bill and in the draft regulations which we shall be considering later today together form a package with which the trustees are content. In view of the lengthy consultations, and because the beneficiaries of these modest and overdue changes include the widows of a number of colleagues who are sadly no longer with us, I hope that the House will agree to support the Bill, and that we can thereafter make rapid progress with its remaining stages. I commend the Bill to the House.

6 pm

Mr. Stan Orme: The Bill deals with ex-Ministers and office-holders and, to that extent, its provisions are limited. The proposals are modest, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it would have been wrong to proceed with the Bill without discussing other matters affecting Members of Parliament, and those matters should therefore be dealt with this evening.
I hope to speak only once, and it may therefore be helpful for the Leader of the House to hear the Opposition's views on the regulations with which he will deal later this evening.
I thank the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has introduced the Bill, and I want to put on record the fact that there has been a great deal of consultation and discussion involving the trustees—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has played a prominent part. I represented the parliamentary Labour party in those discussions, and I know that other hon. Members have represented their respective parties. We have been trying to resolve outstanding problems regarding hon. Members' contributions and benefits under the pension scheme.
The proposals are extremely modest—certainly when considered against the background of conditions in other

Parliaments in Europe, the Commonwealth and the United States. It is worth putting it on record that the House of Commons turned its mind to proper provision for Members of Parliament and their dependants under a contributory scheme only in 1964. We have since had to build on that scheme. Improvements have been made, arid further improvements are contained in the Bill and the regulations. Nevertheless, in certain areas, progress has been painful and slow—not least in respect of widows arid dependants. The House has seen the tragic consequences of that in recent years.
We welcome the improvements that have been made—and certainly some of the improvements outlined in the regulations attached to the Bill. The fact that the Leader of the House has seen fit to introduce the regulations alongside the Bill shows that he recognises the importance that hon. Members attach to the proposals. Many hon. Members have already told the right hon. Gentleman that their concern is to see justice done. We want nothing other than justice. We want what we are entitled to; we do not want anything more, and we certainly do not want anything less. That point must be made very clearly.
The Leader of the House has told us that clause 6 provides the power for the holder of his post to make regulations altering the amount of the Exchequer's contribution to the fund. It is extremely important that that provision should be included in the Bill because, if the Top Salaries Review Body makes proposals for changing the contribution ratio, the right hon. Gentleman must have the basis on which to make those changes. The right hon. Gentleman's anticipation of that eventuality is a mark of his good will towards the House.
We must make it clear to the TSRB that it is totally unsatisfactory to have the Treasury contribution reduced to 4·4 per cent. while Members of Parliament are now to pay 9 per cent. I gave evidence to the body when it last discussed the matter and I made that case strongly.
At that time, of course, we did not realise that the Government Actuary would recommend 4·4 per cent. The Government Actuary has the power to re-examine the Treasury contribution. When he saw that the fund had reached a high level, he reduced that contribution to 4·4 per cent. The problem is that he has no power to examine hon. Member's contributions, and that is absolute nonsense. When I was Minister of State for Social Security, I examined pension funds and I know that the trustees of the pension fund of a large firm such as ICI would never have tolerated such a state of affairs.
I do not think that the Top Salaries Review Body fully understood the arguments that were put on the last occasion. The body takes evidence, and it is incumbent on hon. Members to stress the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—that the employment of hon. Members is unique. I welcome the recommendations made by the Leader of the House, who has gone as far as he can in telling the TSRB to take a fresh look at the matter and come forward with proposals.
I welcome, too, the new proposals regarding an ho n. Member who reaches maximum pension after 30 years' service and is still under the age of 65. At present, if he or she completes 30 years' service before the age of 55, he or she continues to pay full contributions between the ages of 55 and 65 and is, in effect, paying in for no gain. That is nonsense. The removal of that anomaly is welcome, and does no more than bring Members of Parliament into line


with employees in the public and private sectors. We in this place do not take the lead in these matters; indeed, in many respects, we are lagging far behind.
That matter is linked with the question of early retirement. At present, if hon. Members take early retirement, their pension is payable when they reach the age of 65 or when they have done 20 years' service. If the Member of Parliament is over the age of 60 at a general election, he or she can receive an immediate unabated pension. Under the proposed new arrangements, if an hon. Member retires before the age of 60, as long as the required number of years has been reached, he or she will be able to claim a pension without having to wait to attain the age of 65. That is another small, but important and long overdue, adjustment.
Turning to widows', widowers' and children's pensions, there has been a long and protracted argument over this issue, as the Leader of the House knows only too well. There is strong feeling that the pension rights of widows and widowers should be two thirds of the allowable pension instead of one half. There have been instances—these have been put before the House on a number of occasions—of hon. Members who have died on a small pension, because they have only been here for a limited time, when the widow and family have received a pittance and have had to rely on charitable contributions from one or other side of the House. That must be rectified.
Therefore, although the move to five eighths is a step in the right direction, I agree with the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) that that should not be the final answer. We should aim to get the TSRB to agree at some future date that it should be two thirds of the allowable pension. That is a justifiable amount, and we should press for it very strongly indeed.
The increase in the death gratuity is overdue and very welcome. The increase is to two years of gross salary paid to the spouse of the deceased, the widow or the widower, and is back-dated to 1988. This is very welcome, but, again, it is only in line with standard practice.
There have been untimely deaths on both sides of the House. I do not need to stress to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have had some very bitter blows in recent months and years. We have seen families riven by grief because of the untimely deaths of younger Members of the House.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I think it is worth while putting it on the record that widows have to put up not only with their grief but also sometimes with the intrusion of the press and the rest of the media trying to find out who the successor to the seat will be. They often also have to see their late husband's photographs on television just when they are trying to get over a terrible grief.

Mr. Orme: That is one of the extra burdens that one has to bear if one is a Member of the House.
We very much welcome the fact that this recommendation is to be implemented.
I want to deal very briefly with the question of the regulations for future Members of the European Parliament, who will be able to transfer their pension rights from the European Parliament scheme to the House of Commons scheme, where they will be counted as added years. That is very much welcomed. However, those hon.

Members who serve in the House and who have previously served in the European Parliament feel very aggrieved that the proposed new scheme does not apply to them. Will the Minister take a further look at this issue?
A similar situation should also appertain when an hon. Member becomes a Member of the European Parliament. It should be reciprocal. The MEPs are not asking for anything different. They pay to the pension scheme within the European Parliament, and they are on the same salary as we are. All they are asking is that, when they transfer that money, it should be counted as added years. This is a small but, I think, justifiable point.
Speeches tonight have shown how strongly we feel on the resettlement grant. Hon. Members feel that there is a great deal of injustice here. The resettlement grant is for Members who have left the House of Commons, to allow them to make modest adjustments in their home and living conditions. With a cut-off age of 65, it has become a lottery whether one's birthday falls just before a general election or just after it. There are a number of examples of hon. Members who have missed this by a very short period, even days, and also of hon. Members who have gained. As we have no fixed dates for general elections but are dependent on when the Government, irrespective of what party forms the Government, call an election, the unfairness is aggravated.

Sir Anthony Grant: I agree whole-heartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. On the question of hon. Members who gain, is he aware of the case of one of our colleagues, no longer in the House, who was consulted by Prime Ministers as to the date of an election? He was in a difficult position, because whatever advice he gave would benefit or disadvantage him. That shows the absurdity of the present system.

Mr. Orme: That is true, and the lottery must be removed. There is a justifiable case. As the House knows, and as the Leader of the House has acknowledged, 351 hon. Members have signed a motion to this effect. They feel extremely strongly about it. It is worth putting it on record that only a small number of hon. Members are involved, but the injustice is seen as great.
I therefore welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has referred this to the TSRB in as strong language as it is possible for him to use at this stage. I hope that he will impress on the TSRB the fact that hon. Members see this as a matter of natural justice and that it is important that we have a reply as soon as possible, so that any proposals can be implemented before the next general election.
I believe, therefore, that the proposals before us this evening—limited, modest, but important—are a step in the right direction. It is not the end of the problem; we have not resolved all the outstanding issues; but certainly we are making progress. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill and the regulations this evening.

Sir Norman Fowler: Pensions are an acquired taste. I remember that when the state earnings-related pension scheme was introduced in 1975 there were only about a dozen hon. Members present in the House. I mention that to make two points. First, pensions policy generally has been a long-standing interest


of mine—and it is not just my own pension that I am interested in. Secondly, I speak as one of a select band of ex-Thatcher-Cabinet Members who are not retiring at the next election.
A flicker of suspicion crosses my mind when a Government put on a Bill such as this late on a Thursday, with private business at 7 o'clock, and in the middle of a war. My fears are semi-allayed by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said. I support entirely what he says about settlement grants, but I am bound to say that I am less than overwhelmed by the arguments for severance payments for Ministers.
I suppose that publicly the most controversial part of this Bill is clause 1, which gives half-pay pensions to anyone who reaches, for however short a period, the position of Prime Minister, Speaker or Lord Chancellor. I would not oppose that. It follows precedent, as my right hon. Friend has said. These offices have been treated differently previously, and this proposal manages to rationalise the position. It is generous, but, as far as those offices are concerned, justifiable.
My concern is the contrast with the positions of other Ministers and the position of hon. Members generally. To take the Ministers first, the Lord Chancellor's is an important post but not, perhaps, the most dominating post in the Cabinet. Others have more influence: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, deputy Prime Minister, Home Secretary—posts of that kind. They are covered by the supplementary ministerial pensions scheme. Estimates are difficult, but it would take a Cabinet Minister of that kind, or indeed any other Cabinet Minister, about 20 years of service in the Cabinet to reach a half-pay pension. It is hardly necessary for me to say that not many hon. Members, in our experience, serve 20 years in the Cabinet.
What about a Member of Parliament? Under our provisions, it would take him 25 years to reach a half-pay pension, and that is on the new basis of accruals of one fiftieth rather than the old basis of one sixtieth. Of course, that came into being only in 1983. Most hon. Members will be covered by most of the one-sixtieth provision, and only partly covered by the one-eightieth provision.
Whatever else, I do not believe that Ministers and Members of Parliament generally can be attacked for having unbelievably generous pension arrangements, but what really sticks in the throat is the basis upon which those pensions are financed—the reason for clause 6. The Member scheme is a funded scheme. That means contributions from Members and from the Treasury. It used to be the case that the Treasury contributed 18 per cent. and Members contributed 9 per cent. However, over the past few years, like every other funded scheme in the country, there has been a good surplus. That has resulted in Members' contributions remaining at 9 per cent. but the Treasury's contribution going down from 18 per cent. to 4·4 per cent.
I remember something about Government being a model employer. The Government have taken a pension holiday which is extremely difficult to justify. I do not believe that it can be justified, nor do I believe that that is the sort of thing that the Government should be about in terms of pensions policy. Their case is that the 4·4 per cent. is what the Government Actuary says is necessary to finance and fund the scheme. That may be true as an actuarial calculation, but it does not mean for one moment that we should believe that everything within the scheme now is desirable or cannot be improved. For example, the

position of widows could be improved, to the benefit of everyone concerned. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take on board what I detect to be the feeling on that subject, particularly in respect of widows. Changes in the financing of the scheme are urgently required. The position until now has been rather shabby and not something in which the Government should be involved.
Obviously, I welcome clause 6. I would welcome it even more if my right hon. Friend would go a little further in what he sets out as the Government's policy and the evidence that he will give to the TSRB. I am delighted to know about his powers to do that, but I should be interested to know even more about the matter. However, clause 6 allows the Leader of the House, with the consent of the Treasury, to make provision for determining the Exchequer contribution. It calls for consultations with the trustees. Again, that is obviously an important thing to do. Also, it calls for consultations with persons appearing to the Leader of the House of Commons to represent persons likely to be affected by the regulations on which he has consulted, other than the trustees themselves. Again, that is an important point.
Not everyone will want to be in the House of Commons scheme. There are now new pension options. For example, there are personal pensions, which in many ways were designed for people who might change jobs. Someone who enters the House with a majority of 300—I do not care on what side of the House—is not necessarily going to look forward to 30 years' uninterrupted service on the Benches of the House of Commons. It is important that the position of personal pensions is understood.
What does a generous Exchequer do? Of course, it pays the national insurance contribution that is required by law, but, apart from that, as the employer it makes no extra contribution whatsoever. The Treasury's touching support for the Government's policy of extending choice in pensions is to do the absolute minimum that the law allows. In other words, it does absolutely nothing. The Treasury needs to be made aware of that point and to understand that the law has changed, even if some of the views upon it may not have done so.
The trustees are concerned first and foremost about the fund, and that is right. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must take into account other interests as well. He really must impress upon the Treasury and upon his colleagues the fact that there are now new options, that the law has changed, and that hon. Members may want to exercise those options, just as much as people outside would wish to do so.
The Bill is rather incomplete. It deals with some problems but ignores others. It should be recognised that Members of Parliament have a right to good and sensible pension arrangements made for them, and, above all, that we do not allow the Treasury to rule the scheme. That would be disastrous. A few years ago, I carried out a national review of pension arrangements. I hope that my right hon. Friend will conduct his own review of pensions for Ministers and Members of Parliament. There is a great deal left to improve in our system.

Mr. Alfred Morris: After that withering criticism of the Treasury, I rise to speak as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. In that capacity, the House will


expect me to give the views of the trustees on the Government's proposals as set out in the Bill. As trustees, selected by right hon. and hon. Members as a whole to manage the fund, my colleagues and I, from both sides of the House, try our best to improve its provisions in the interests both of hon. Members, past and present, and their dependants. We have taken a leading role in securing many improvements in the scheme over the years, including a faster accrual rate, the age—service conditions for early retirement at a general election, and the provision for ill-health retirement pensions.
As I made clear in our last debate on parliamentary pensions on 17 January 1990, however, there remained a very strong case for further improvements. This debate, more than a year later, breaks all known records for frequency of postponement and, regrettably, although the Bill provides for some improvements long advocated by the trustees, it does not meet all our aims—in particular, our very strongly held view that the scheme will remain most seriously flawed until the injustice of a Member's contribution of 9 per cent., compared with one from the Treasury of only 4·4 per cent., is redressed.
Anyone who thinks that the House of Commons puts the interests of hon. Members first should look at that comparison and the failure, over a protracted period, to bring it more into line with the average of contributions paid by employees and employers in occupational pension schemes generally. According to the latest survey I have of occupational pension schemes, by the National Association of Pension Funds, employees in the United Kingdom contribute 4·4 per cent. towards the cost of their pensions and employers 8·8 per cent. So in the United Kingdom as a whole, employers pay twice as much as employees whereas, in our scheme, hon. Members pay more than twice as much as the Treasury.
I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that the initial steps towards the improvements for which the Leader of the House is now providing were taken as long ago as May 1987, when we debated the Bill which became the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. That Act allowed for the amendment of the rules governing Members' pension arrangements by secondary legislation. Draft regulations under the 1987 Act will be considered later this evening in relation to the TSRB's latest report. However, we still await consolidated regulations, which is a matter that I raised with the Leader of the House for the trustees at a recent meeting with him.
In the debate on the Second Reading of the 1987 Act, strong pressure was exerted by Members, notably on the rate of their contributions and the level of benefits. In consequence, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), agreed to refer the parliamentary contributory pension fund to the Top Salaries Review Body, as reported in the Official Report of 24 July 1987, column 502. The TSRB's report was published in May 1988, since when the trustees of the fund have discussed them, at innumerable meetings, with three successive Leaders of the House: the right hon. Members for Colchester, South and Maldon, for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor).
With all of them, the trustees pressed the claims which were set out to the House in my speech of 17 January 1990.

I know that all three right hon. Members sought and, indeed, helped to close the gap between us, and that the Bill that we are debating would have been much less satisfactory but for their efforts. It must be emphasised that the present Leader, within days of his appointment, made plain his readiness to help in every way possible and that at least one important change to the Bill, as originally drafted, owes a very great deal to his responsive attitude to our representations.
The Bill now includes a clause which will enable the House to express an opinion and, indeed, to reject any proposal by the Leader to vary the Exchequer-Member contribution ratio which appears unreasonable to the House. The clause does not guarantee a debate. The House will be unable to act unless the Leader tables a proposal and I hope very much that he will go as far as he possibly can in this debate to assure us that it will be his firm purpose, and must also be that of his successors, to provide parliamentary time on an amendable motion to enable the House to state its views whenever the interests of Members are affected by any question on which he can act by making a proposal under the clause. Not to do so will merely increase dissatisfaction with the present imbalance as between ministerial and parliamentary control over the scheme. For the moment, however, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for going further in this matter than any of his predecessors were able to go.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am rather concerned about the TSRB and its responsibility. Can my right hon. Friend satisfy me and other right hon. and hon. Members that, if the TSRB rejected what the House suggested to it, the avenue open to hon. Members, particularly on resettlement grant, would be to take action in the House by a majority of the House—351 hon. Members out of 650 who could attend the House and sign an early-day motion, perhaps excluding Ministers and a few others—appending their signatures to an early-day motion? At least, if the TSRB rejected our suggestion, we could take action. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and others that that will be possible?

Mr. Morris: Ultimately the power to decide rests with this House. The Treasury has enormous control over Ministers, yet we need help from them. Further to my hon. Friend's comments, I must tell the Leader of the House that I believe the pressure for change as far as resettlement grant is concerned is now becoming totally irresistible.
Very clearly, as I know the right hon. Gentleman accepts, it would have been preferable if the regulations on the Order Paper could have been laid before now, but I have been given assurances, which are reflected in the regulations, that some of the improvements and amendments for which they provide will apply as if they had been laid when they were first agreed between Leaders of the House and the trustees.
In the debate on 17 January 1990, there was wide support for improving the benefits of the scheme. At the same time, concern was again expressed about the Exchequer-Member contribution ratio. That concern was reinforced by the publication of the Government Actuary's report on the valuation of the fund as at 31 March 1987, showing a surplus of £7·4 million. Today there is even stronger feeling, as I hear daily from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, that urgent action must be taken to redress the balance. What


the Bill demonstrates is that the trustees' representations to successive Leaders of the House have produced some improvements in benefits, not least for widows, and in the pace of progress towards a more acceptable balance between Members' and Exchequer contributions to the Fund.
While I must again emphasise that we have not achieved all that we had hoped for, Members will see that there are real improvements in the Bill. If the trustees had been the sole arbiters, these improvements would have been at once more substantial and of quicker effect; but the House must recognise that the extent of our power to change the scheme is limited. As of now, we have the power to recommend, but not the authority to act executively, in relation either to benefits or the level of contributions to the scheme. That basically is why the parliamentary scheme still compares unfavourably with others in terms of the proportion of the scheme's costs paid for by its Members and of the benefits that it provides.
One of the most important changes provided for by the Bill is the increase in the rate of pensions payable to widows to five eighths, rather than the current half rate. It is less than the two thirds that the trustees argued for. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward. As the Leader of the House knows, under the current Inland Revenue rules, the maximum widow's pension that may be paid is two thirds of her husband's pension. The trustees asked that the surplus in the fund, shown by the Actuary's report, should be used to increase the widow's pension to the rate acceptable to the Inland Revenue. We won only half a loaf, however, and I give notice now that there will be further strong pressure for a two-thirds widow's pension.
Anyone who thinks that such pressure is uncalled for should look at some of the pensions now in payment to the widows of former Members of Parliament. At his death in 1984, the widow of a former colleague, and very close friend of mine, with total service of some 20 years, was entitled to barely £50 a week. That is but one example of the way in which the widows of former Members have fared and why Sir Anthony Kershaw, formerly the Member for Stroud, said here on 27 April 1987:
It is an absolute disgrace that this should be tolerated … even to speak of it ought to give one a sense of shock."—[Official Report, 28 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 104.]
Some of the regulations on the Order Paper will apply with effect from 6 April 1988. In one case, the effect will be to provide an increase in benefit for widows or widowers of hon. Members who have died since that time. It will be clear to hon. Members that a large number of widows and dependants will not, however, benefit from the rise, including the widow of my colleague and friend who died in 1984.
To help in meeting the problems that can arise, I am glad the Government have agreed that measures may be taken, under the extension of the Members' Fund Acts, to allow the trustees to relieve any hardship for widows or widowers who lost their husbands or wives before April 1988. The trustees have been told that the question of retrospection is difficult. We accept that it is clearly logical to have April 1988 as the date of automatic entitlement to the higher pension of five eighths, but the possibility of any extra help for those whose husbands died before then will become available only after regulations to amend the Members' Fund Acts have come into force. The House will

know that I speak in the debate also as chairman of the managing trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund.
In relation to other improvements, I turn to one for which the trustees have pressed for some years: to allow Members to cease payment of contributions when entitlement to a maximum pension of two thirds of salary has been achieved. Members in this position now have to continue paying a 9 per cent. contribution without gaining any increase in their pension rights. Happily the regulations referred to on the Order Paper now provide for them to retain a notional holding within the fund without the deduction of further contributions, so the wholly reasonable case made by the trustees is now conceded. On a technical but important point, I must also thank the Leader of the House for including the necessary powers to allow the trustees formally to appoint investment agents, as required under the Financial Services Act 1986.
Further improvements, which result from pressure by the trustees and recommendations contained in the 26th report of the TSRB, include an increase in the death-in-service gratuity from one year's salary to twice the annual salary of a Member. I am naturally very glad to note that, in keeping with the trustees' request, this will be backdated to 1 May 1988, thus covering all deaths in service during the present Parliament, of which there has been a tragic number.
There are also improvements in the Bill for the provision of pensions on early retirement. Under the present system, the entitlement is determined at the point at which the Member leaves the House. There is then a sharp cut-off so that, for example, a Member with 20 years' service, who leaves just before his or her 60th birthday, is under severe disadvantage compared to one who leaves just after the age of 60. The new arrangements provide much more flexibility; and I commend them to Members on behalf of the trustees.
The regulations on this will also allow for service in the European Parliament to count towards the qualifying period. Here I need to ask the Leader of the House, on behalf of the trustees, if he can give any assurance that the change will be reciprocated in the parallel European parliamentary scheme. I fully understand the concern of former MEPs who feel that they are seriously disadvantaged by the Government's decision not to make retrospective the provision for counting their service as MEPs in relation to early retirement. The trustees have had many and strong representations from former MEPs on this vexed issue. We played our part in ensuring that they were drawn urgently to the attention of successive Leaders of the House. We did not, however, and do not now, have the power of decision in the matter; and, as the House knows, the Government, in holding the line against retrospection, feel that they cannot go, as it were, the extra mile.
I stress again also my understanding, and that of my fellow trustees, of the extent of feeling, in all parts of the House, about the serious imbalance between Members' contributions to the fund and those of the Exchequer. The mechanism for determining what is paid into the fund, agreed as long ago as 1972, was essentially to ensure that the Member's contribution would be fixed and the Exchequer's contribution would vary in such a way as to keep the fund at a viable level to meet its pension liabilities.
What this means in practice is that when, as a result of good management by the trustees, the assets of the fund


increase, the Exchequer contribution is decreased and the Treasury benefits rather than Members or pensioners. The absurd situation has now been reached whereby, I repeat, Members contribute over twice as much as the Exchequer to the fund, while outside the House the average employer pays twice as much as the employee to his occupational pension scheme.
Some aspects of the Bill are outside the responsibilities of the trustees: for example, severance pay for Ministers. That innovation stems from a recommendation by the TSRB on which the Government have resolved to act in the interests of right hon. and hon. Members who lose ministerial office. Another issue that is outside the trustees' terms of reference is that of the resettlement grant, to which both my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the Leader of the House referred, for Members who lose their seats or otherwise leave Parliament at a general election. I am, of course, aware of how resentful Members are about the manifest inequities of the present rules for payment of the grant. Indeed, as the House knows, I sought recently to reflect the strength of feeling on the issue by tabling a motion which attracted 336 signatories, a clear majority of the House, on the day it was tabled.
It was more than a modest start, but the motion now has still more signatories, from both sides of the House, and I have had numerous messages from Members, not least Conservative Members, who would have signed had they not been inhibited from doing so by the offices they hold. Thus the number of signatories of the motion, huge and unprecedented though it may be, is well below the total support for its purposes.
The grant is not, of course, a severance payment or one for redundancy. As its name says, it is a resettlement grant, for people with two places of work when they retire from the House. As of now, there is a pot luck element in the rules for the grant. One former Cabinet Minister received the grant—a year's salary—because the last general election was called just before his 65th birthday, while others less fortunate, but some with over 30 years' service, received nothing because they were just over 65.
The motion would make the grant payable, subject to a minimum length of service rule, unless the Member stands for election after his or her 65th birthday. There is also provision for payment, at any age, to Members with long service to the House. This is in recognition of the resettlement problems of Members with long service, many of whom have to uproot from their homes because they can no longer afford to live in London on their incomes as pensioners.
I remind the House that there has been only one general election since the rules were made, and that it was not until afterwards that the inequities of the rules became apparent. The grant is, however, payable from the Consolidated Fund, not from the parliamentary pension scheme, and it will be for the House to remove, as I hope it very soon will, the undoubted injustices which its Members see in the current rules.
To conclude, I place on record, on behalf of the trustees, and indeed all Members and their dependants, our warmly renewed appreciation of the quiet and often unseen but painstaking and always caring work of Jim Dobson, Tony Lewis and all who help to administer the

scheme. They go far beyond the calls of duty in the service they provide, and they deserve the gratitude of the House as a whole.

Sir Peter Hordern: As a trustee of the fund, I am grateful for the hard work which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has done as chairman, on behalf of the House. Thanks to the extent and comprehensive nature of his remarks, there are many matters on which I shall not have to follow him.
I should like to stress one point at the start. There may be some outside the House who believe that we are discussing improvements in benefit for which the taxpayer will have to pay. It is important to stress that ours is a funded scheme, which means that we make contributions to it and that improvements in benefit come from improvements to the fund and its performance. That is unlike the great majority of public sector schemes which are wholly funded by the taxpayer. Indeed, the measures which we are discussing will result in a smaller contribution from the taxpayer than has been the case in the past. I make no apology for saying that the benefits which we are considering are in themselves not only worthy but arise from the efforts of the fund and those who manage it to secure better benefits, which we fully deserve.
For that reason, however, I do not think it right to compare our scheme and the benefits which we have as Members of Parliament with schemes in other countries, tempting though it would be to do so, because I believe that those schemes are generally funded by taxpayers who must take the responsibility for them. But if ours is to remain a funded scheme, which it should, we must expect the benefits that flow from it and no others.
It would not be right for us to recommend and carry into being improvements in our own scheme. They must be sent to the TSRB which, after careful consideration and having made its recommendations, should allow the Leader of the House to bring them before the House, as is proposed in clause 6.
These matters have been referred to the TSRB in the past and on three separate occasions they have suggested that the contributions made should be in the proportion of three eighths from Members and five eighths from Government. I see no reason why that proportion should ever have been altered. It was only because the TSRB understood it to be the wish of the House that we should make a contribution of 9 per cent. I do not wish to go into the antecedents of that decision. Apart from anything else, I do not have the time. I say only that it was a scratched-up deal done rather late at night and most unworthy of us. I hope that, when the TSRB looks at the matter again, it will forget that 9 per cent. and look at the matter squarely on its merits, as should be the case.
As a result of that, not only do we pay 9·9 per cent., but the Government contribution, because of the health of the fund and the way in which it has performed, has been reduced to 4·4 per cent.—somewhat less than half the rate that Members contribute. That is the case not just for one or two years—many schemes in the private sector take a contributions holiday for a year or two. This idea is to have 4·4 per cent. for no fewer than eight years while we continue to pay double. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs which must be addressed carefully. It simply


cannot be right. Therefore, it has been arranged—I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on doing so—that the TSRB will recommend whatever the appropriate contribution should be. In my opinion, our contribution should be nearer 6 per cent. at most and the Treasury's 8 per cent., rising to 14 per cent. in seven years' time.
However, there is now a new factor in the equation because there is to be a new valuation of the assets in the fund as at June last year. That valuation should show a further substantial surplus and, because the Government Actuary has no power to do anything else, we might have to say that because of that substantial surplus the Treasury contribution should be reduced to nothing while we continue to pay 9 per cent. I dare say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would have your support in saying that that arrangement would be unacceptable. Therefore, it is not enough simply to say what the balance of contribution might be. The TSRB should also look carefully at what further improvements might be made in our fund, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said.
One of the things that we considered was widows' pensions. We originally proposed two thirds, which is the proportion paid in many private sector schemes, to be paid to widows in future. But if we were to get anything it was to be five eighths or nothing, so we had to accept five eighths.
The TSRB should have looked at benefits in other funded schemes in the public sector. For example, teachers have favourable arrangements for early retirement and British Airways has a three-year salary payment rather than two for death in service.
I understand that the TSRB has been asked to look only at the level of contributions, but as the Government Actuary can look only at the state of the fund as at June 1990 and report this summer on what should be done, there will be time for the Government to consider the TSRB report on contributions. We could use clause 6 to carry that into effect. Surely it would be better if the TSRB were to take evidence from Members about desirable improvements, such as widows' pensions. It is, after all, nearly three years since the TSRB last reported and it will be aware of the defects in our scheme compared with other funded schemes. It will also be aware of the lack of balance in our contributions and the resources available to us.
Therefore, I propose that after the Government Actuary recommends what the contributions should be in order to provide existing and proposed benefits, the TSRB should come forward with further recommendations before the end of the year which the Government Actuary could then calculate and quantify. That would be in time for the Government to carry the proposals into effect under clause 6 before June 1992.
The House will know that under clause 6 the Leader of the House may, with the consent of the Treasury, by regulations, make provision for the benefits here. I do not understand why the Treasury—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the case that if the debate concludes at 7 o'clock, we do not have to come back at 10 o'clock, but that if it does not conclude at 7 o'clock, we may have to come back at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): What the hon. Gentleman does this evening is a matter for him.

Sir Peter Hordern: I am just coming to the end of my remarks and I hope that the House will be patient. I am, after all, a trustee of the fund. This is a bad deal and it is quite wrong that we should have only an hour and a half in which to debate it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am going to have my say.
I do not understand why the Treasury should be mentioned specifically under clause 6. It is bound to take a view anyway. The Treasury is getting off lightly, through no merit of its own. It has nothing to do with the success of the fund. If the trustees had wanted to, we could have invested all the money in Government securities, and where would the Treasury have been then? It must distinguish between the pay-as-you-go schemes and the funded schemes. A period of silence and modesty on the part of the Treasury would be welcome. Its part in all this has been distinctly shabby. I am astonished that the Treasury has had the nerve in clause 6 to show its head above the parapet. If that had happened in the private sector, the Treasury would have been castigated as a bad employer.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing the Bill to the House and I wish him every success.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been received. Several of those who have spoken have great experience in these matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was a distinguished Minister and a key architect of the personal pension scheme. I have no doubt that he will mount a powerful case to the TSRB along the lines that he put to the House tonight.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for all that he does as chairman of the trustees. He does a tremendous amount of work on matters of detail, as well as on the kind of things he has been talking about this evening.
There is a general feeling that the Bill should now go ahead so that we can get on with it. It has been long delayed. As hon. Members have said, it is comparatively modest, but it is right that it should be enacted. Therefore, I hope that we can now reach a conclusion on the Bill.
Some issues that have been raised during the debate are more relevant to the regulations—particularly the point regarding Members of the European Parliament, to which we may have time to return later. It is not a simple point that can be dealt with quickly, but it is one that I am considering. However, there are real complexities which we may be able to discuss later.
I said a great deal in my opening remarks and I now recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the debate can continue after 10 o'clock. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) that an hour and a half is a ridiculous amount of time to debate such an important matter. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we allow the Bill to go forward, can the debate on the motion continue after 10 o'clock? I do not wish to delay the House, but I do wish to talk on the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Wood.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund or the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required to be so charged or paid under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so charged or payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take it that if the opposed private business should end early the motion will be debated immediately afterwards?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman may certainly take that to be the position. However, on present form, I am not sure how likely it is. If the situation should arise, I will bear the hon. Gentleman's interest in mind.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7 pm

Mr. John Garrett: The motion is simple and straightforward. Its purpose is to revive the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill so that it may receive further and detailed consideration in this House. It is not the purpose of tonight's debate to rehearse the principles or the detailed substance of the Bill; the proper time for that is the Second Reading debate and later stages. I do not intend to take up the valuable time of the House in an attempt to discuss the merits of the Bill. I am sure that I should be ruled out of order were I to do so.
The only question raised by this revival motion is whether the Bill should have an opportunity to resume its passage through Parliament, whether its contents are sufficiently important to the city of Southampton to justify the parliamentary and public scrutiny of a Second Reading debate and, should the Bill be given a Second Reading, to justify Committee consideration of petitions on it. The Bill was given lengthy consideration in another place.
The city of Southampton faces a period of rapid growth, resulting in pressures on its transport infrastructure and in unprecedented economic development. The rapid transit project that the city council is promoting by way of this Bill has been judged, after extensive study and consultation, to be the best way of meeting the changing transport needs of Southampton in a period of scarce public resources. On two occasions this judgment has been confirmed by a two-to-one majority on the city council, all parties having been given the opportunity of a free vote.
The city council has had to bring a private Bill before Parliament simply because a rapid transit system of the type proposed counts, in parliamentary terms, as requiring authority for a private Bill, just as railway Bills do. I regard this procedure as thoroughly outmoded, and I welcome


Governmemt proposals to change it so that non-parliamentary means may be found to deal with such matters. In any case, we owe it to the city of Southampton to give the matter further consideration.
The scope of the Bill is very specific. It authorises its promoter—the city council—to build a 4·4 km rapid transit system round the city centre. It involves the construction of a largely elevated track or guideway, segregated from all other means of transport, on which would travel electrically powered vehicles running on rubber tyres. The Bill includes power to acquire land by compulsory purchase, within defined limits of deviation of the route; to franchise the system out; to form a company; and to dispose of the system.
Southampton's is not the only Bill proposing a rapid transit or light rail solution to local transport problems to have come before the House. Such ventures are appearing increasingly around the country as transport authorities look for fuel-efficient and cost-efficient ways of addressing modern travel needs and their economic and environmental implications.

Sir Anthony Grant: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an East Anglian Member, not a Southampton Member. He may be aware that the city of Cambridge probably has greater transport and traffic problems than Southampton and the rest of the south coast put together. A rapid transit system has been mooted for Cambridge. All sorts of solutions are being put forward. However, the authorities in Cambridgeshire are concerned that there should be complete unanimity of opinion about such a dramatic change. Is there unanimity in Southampton?

Mr. Garrett: I hope that I shall be able, in the Second Reading debate, to deal at length with that point. All that we want at the moment is the revival of the Bill so that it may receive a Second Reading. If there is to be a test of the strength of the opposition to it, no doubt that will take place at later stages. This motion is very specific.
The emergence of stringent environmental criteria for such schemes is a point which I believe is not lost on the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. James Hill: I fully agree that this is a procedural motion. However, this is the first chance the House has had to look into some of the imperfections of this system. It is only right that we should be allowed to broaden the debate. Unless the reasons are given, how can we decide whether the Bill should be revived? We cannot just have an empty debate. I suppose that we could simply go home in 30 seconds without discussing this terrible Bill at all.

Mr. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman flatters me. His remarks should have been addressed to the Chair. I did not say that this was a procedural motion; it was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who said so—and quite rightly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refer at great length to the merits of the Bill, it is up to him to try. I am sure that you, Sir, will give him guidance as to whether he is in order.
Hon. Members will know of such other projects as the Midland Metro and ones in Manchester, Avon, Sheffield and South Yorkshire. Many more are expected, and the Minister gave notice of these when, on 18 December 1990, he presented evidence to the inquiry of the Select Committee on Transport into light rail systems.

Mr. Peter Fry: As a member of the Select Committee, I can tell the House that we have not yet published our report. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of schemes likely to meet the present requirements is very small? Southampton, at first sight, does not seem to be one of them. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this procedure should go ahead? It is the money of many community charge payers in Southampton that will promote this Bill and, in so doing, push a scheme that is very unlikely to come to fruition.

Mr. Garrett: I look foward to reading the Select Committee's report so that I may compare its criteria with the characteristics of this proposed system. As to whether the legislation should be proceeded with, presumably the House will make its decision tonight.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister said that another half dozen schemes might be in operation before the end of the century. Successive Transport Ministers in the present Government have welcomed such schemes.
The route proposed in the Bill aims to link the major features of the city and to connect existing public transport facilities—the railway, ferries, the bus station, coach transport facilities and the majority of car parks.

Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garrett: Not for the moment.
Twelve stops are to be provided, including the Pirelli site, Ocean Village, about three quarters of a mile of Associated British Ports land in various stages of development, and the Woolworths site. The scheme that the Bill proposes is intended to ease existing and future traffic congestion in Southampton city centre at a time when the city is poised to shift from a port-based economy to become a major south coast regional centre.
The service will be safe, reliable, quiet, frequent and easily extendable, subject to further authorisation. Some of the content of the Bill is concerned with the provisions for future funding of the scheme. It is a marriage of public initiative and public funding, and the Bill makes specific provision for the system to be franchised out.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garrett: In a minute.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some experience of dealing with private Bills. You, Sir, will recall that when I moved a motion of this sort last year, the Opposition, quite rightly, expected me to give way to enable hon. Members to ask questions on matters about which they were concerned. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should adopt such an attitude, because on that previous occasion the Opposition expected me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter is not one for me to consider.

Mr. Garrett: You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I gave way on almost every other sentence at the start of my brief speech, but now I want to make a little progress.
The scheme will not be owned by the city council. Southampton made it clear that if money cannot be raised from the private sector, the project will not proceed.


However, the council believes that private funding is available, and that in the current financial climate it is the best way to ensure that the city centre gets the extra transport capacity that it needs.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Garrett: Where was I? The council believes that private funding is the best way of ensuring, in the present financial climate, that the city gets the extra transport capacity that it needs in the shortest possible time scale.

Mr. Ashby: As this is a revival motion, the House should consider what prospect the project has of being successful. I heard that no interest whatsoever has been expressed by private sources in funding the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised that private funding is the most necessary ingredient, can he say who is prepared to finance the project? All the information that we have suggests that no interest in funding has been expressed by the private sector.

Mr. Garrett: I will deal with that later. However, the city council has made it clear that if the money cannot be raised from the private sector, it will not proceed.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garrett: I am still attempting to answer the previous intervention.
At present, the city council has received support from a large number of major public companies, in terms of raising funds for the project's next stage.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House in his attempt to persuade right hon. and hon. Members that the city council has given some form of guarantee that there will be no public sector funding. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wants to intervene—although I suppose that he cannot intervene in an intervention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the undesirability of sedentary noise.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Member for Bradford, South may be able to make his points later, in a long speech of the kind that he usually makes.
When the city council gave evidence to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the other place, it refused to agree to a guarantee being written into the Bill that no public funding—either from Southampton community charge payers or any other source—would be used. As a former resident of the city, I may add that the word of Southampton's Labour city council is worthless, in respect of not only this but any other matter.

Mr. Garrett: The scheme will not proceed unless it can be financed from the private sector. The city council is currently in discussions with a large number of companies, which have expressed interest in contributing their money to the next stage of the project.

Mr. Michael Colvin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, he may find my

remarks helpful—but they may worry some of my hon. Friends who are against the Bill. As this is an enabling measure, is it not impossible to detect how interested investors may be in the project until a prospectus is available? That cannot be done until the Bill has progressed. Finance is at the heart of whether or not the enabling motion is passed.

Mr. Garrett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. He is quite right—and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will observe that I have tried to stay within the rules of order in referring only to the worth of the Bill.
The Bill was deposited in the other place in November 1988 and it received its Second Reading on 13 April 1989. By the time that the Bill was considered by an Opposed Bill Committee between 30 October and 13 November 1989, the number of outstanding petitions was reduced from 16 to five. The city council agreed to accommodate concerns raised by petitioners and the Committee.
The Committee looked at every aspect of the scheme in detail, and its members spent a day in Southampton looking at the route, as well as listening to seven full days of evidence. It considered a very full range of issues, including external and environmental impact, efficacy of easing traffic congestion, the effect on trees, parks and open spaces, details of proposed funding and the benefits and advantages of the chosen Briway system.
Only two small changes were made in Committee—one proposed by the Bill's promoters to safeguard parkland, and the other a small rerouting proposal by the Lords Committee.
Immediately afterwards, Parliament did not agree the carry-over of Bills in the Session beginning in November 1989—so all Bills needing revival were effectively killed. The Leader of the House proposed and right hon. and hon. Members agreed, after consideration, that the Bills could proceed, but would have to start afresh as new Bills. So Southampton's Bill is not unique in losing some months due to procedural disagreements.
On 8 May 1990, the Bill finally received its Third Reading, and had its First Reading in this House. On 14 May, it was passed by the Examiners.

Mr. Hill: No progress was made because Southampton city council could not agree. There has been a terrific amount of interplay, and the Conservative group, aided by the Liberal Democrats, is completely opposed to the Bill. The objections that I have expressed in the House come direct from the city council.

Mr. Garrett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the motivation for that opposition when he makes his own speech.
The Bill's Second Reading was blocked for the first time on 22 May by Conservative Members, but, subject to this revival, its merits can be properly considered during a Second Reading debate. The democratic argument for further consideration—leaving aside the merits of the proposal—are unanswerable, and the citizens of Southampton would be badly served if the project could not be more closely considered during later stages of the Bill's progress.
At every stage, the project has been the subject of exhaustive consultations with specialists and public opinion in Southampton. The MVA consultancy employed Dr. George Gaskell of the London School of Economics to conduct a public consultation exercise in the


summer and autumn of 1988, and the search for the most effective scheme involved an international competition with proposals from 17 companies and consortia drawn from every continent. I was very pleased that the Briway system, which is British, was chosen. Expert and local evidence was called in the House of Lords Committee.
The rapid transit scheme that the Bill proposes is a practical and imaginative attempt to address current and future public transport challenges in a changing city without burdening Southampton's community charge payers or national taxpayers. That is why, in two independent surveys into public opinion in Southampton, 76 per cent. of all householders and 75 per cent. of individuals in a street survey wanted it. That is why it received all-party support in the other place, with only one dissenting voice heard there on Second Reading. That is why Lord Montagu, chairman of English Heritage, introduced the Bill and spoke in its support. That is why the scheme is not opposed by Hampshire county council and the local chamber of commerce, and why the majority of all councillors on Southampton city council twice voted in favour of the scheme.

Mr. Hill: Hampshire county council takes a completely neutral view. It is neither for nor against the project. One could not hope for the county council to adopt a fairer attitude, given that it is the area's transportation expert.

Mr. Garrett: That is why Hampshire county council is not opposed to the scheme. That seems to me to be a mindless and irrelevant interruption.
That is why the Department of Transport is actively considering the practicalities of introducing the scheme. Most important, that is why no fewer than 20 industrial and commercial concerns—many of which are national household names—are prepared to support the rapid transport scheme commercially. In the face of that support, denying the Bill the chance to progress would not only be undemocratic but would be a disgracefully wasted opportunity for the people who live and work in and travel to and round Southampton city centre.
Having followed the Bill's progress through the parliamentary process, discussed the proposal with people backing it, seen the congestion that the scheme is designed to tackle in the city, and seen and ridden the prototype vehicle for the scheme on its test track in Cranleigh, I am convinced that the matter is of sufficient importance to proceed to a Second Reading debate in the House, and I look forward to the House's assent to this motion.

Sir David Price: The kindest comment that I can make about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is to remind the House of those famous lines of Oliver Goldsmith:
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.

Mr. John Garrett: If that was a spontaneous reaction to my speech, why did the hon. Gentleman have to read it?

Sir David Price: rose—

Mr. John Prescott: Because the Southampton Tory party told him to.

Sir David Price: I think that the shadow transport spokesman should be a little quieter at the moment.

Mr. Janman: The shadow transport spokesman just made a comment from a sedentary position. Does my hon. Friend agree that he is one of the people who would be likely to use this new transport system, because he is unable to use his car?

Sir David Price: I should have to say that that would not apply, because I intend to try to prove to the House that this proposed transport system does not convey people from their homes to the shopping centre.
I argue that the fact that they passed this Bill in another place is absolutely no reason why we should. I remind the House that two years ago there was a Hampshire county council Bill to build a Lyndhurst bypass. It was successful in another place and received a Second Reading here, but in Committee hon. Members were very stern in their condemnation of the Bill. They went so far as to suggest —in very parliamentary language—that the promoters of the Bill had been wasting the House's time. Therefore, on this occasion we are entitled to consider the merits of the Bill, because obviously, if it has merits, we should proceed with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will bear in mind the fact that the most appropriate occasion to consider the merits of a Bill is when it is before the House on Second Reading. We are now discussing a procedural motion.

Sir David Price: With respect—

Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is relevant to whether the House continues to allow procedural motions such as this to proceed is consideration of what lies behind the Bill, such as the fact that, at the moment, there are between 50 and 70 schemes for light rail systems, most of which will never be approved by Government? Not only do Bills that have little or no hope of success waste the time of Parliament—surely that is valuable enough—but they also lead to an awful waste of public money.

Sir David Price: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. Also, it is relevant to whether the House passes this motion to consider whether the purpose behind the Bill is to produce the form of light transport that the hon. Member for Norwich, South was talking about—the type of system that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) supports, as I do. That is why I think that some reference to the scheme becomes necessary, if we are to decide whether to assent to this motion. I shall endeavour to show the House that the scheme does not do any of the things that the hon. Member for Norwich, South suggests.

Mr. Janman: May I refer back to some of the comments by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)? For some unknown reason, he has a connection with the city of Southampton, although I am not aware of it—but perhaps he will correct me about that later.
The hon. Member said that it was democratic to allow this motion to proceed. However, this is a revival motion for this Session of Parliament. Given that there is plenty of evidence from the city of Southampton that it is very much divided on the matter—there is plenty of evidence that the city does not want it—it would be undemocratic to assent


to this revival motion so that the Bill could proceed this Session until there was a proven and clearly drafted case for the need and desire for such a transit system.

Sir David Price: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
I invite the House to consider this project for a would-be rapid transit system—that is the name of the Bill. That very name suggests that the new system will produce enhanced facilities to convey the good citizens of Southampton from one part of the city to another, perhaps to bring them from the suburbs to the shopping centre. However, the system does none of those things.
In documentation with the Bill, the system is referred to as a "people mover". That is a sick joke. It no more moves people in any meaningful or constructive sense than a rollercoaster at a holiday camp. In fact, this scheme is little more than a rather grand rollercoaster. The phrase "people mover" reminds me of old-fashioned Soviet newspeak—it might have been written by George Orwell.
The real problem facing the city of Southampton is the same as that facing many other large towns in this country—the future of their city centres and especially of city centre shopping facilities. In the past, many large stores were located in the centre of cities, which acted as a magnet, and people came from all around to shop there. That is no longer the case, for a number of reasons that we are all aware of.
It is perfectly proper for the city of Southampton to try to counter that, and I shall remind the House of the reasons for it: the movement of population out of inner cities into the surrounding countryside; and the enormous increase in motor car ownership. In the Southampton area, many families have two cars, and quite a number with teenage children have more.

Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the system could operate is in conjunction with park-and-ride facilities? Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand the only way that one could park and ride on this scheme would be if one drove into the centre of Southampton to get on to it.

Sir David Price: My hon. Friend is, as always, extremely well informed.
The third reason is the advent of out-of-town shopping centres. To the east of Southampton, developers are in the process of building a large shopping complex which will combine one of Sainsbury's Savacentres and a Marks and Spencer with large parking facilities. The city of Southampton must put its mind to competing with that sort of attraction. The proposals in the Bill, which are very narrowly defined, go nowhere near meeting those challenges. If anyone doubts that, he should read the note circulated by the promoters of the Bill to hon. Members before this debate; it states:
the proposed system is not directly intended to improve transport from outlying areas into the city centre".
Therefore, the system does none of the things that a good modern system—

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, during debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, an objection was raised when any hon. Member connected with the Bill spoke to people in the Box at the end of the Chamber. You deprecated it when that was taking place, and you and one

of the other Deputy Speakers said how important it was for hon. Members connected with the Bill not to leave the Chamber and go to chat to people in the Box. Will you ensure that that does not happen tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no recollection of instructing the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and persons beyond the Bar of the House are not recognised by the Chair.

Sir David Price: The Bill is entirely irrelevant to Southampton's genuine transport problems. It is of no value to the majority of our citizens.

Mr. Ashby: Hon. Members have mentioned "park and ride", and it has been pointed out that it is necessary to get into Southampton to use the system. I have heard that Southampton's beautiful parks will be used as parking places, which would surely be most—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot deal with such matters in this debate. The motion enables the House, if it chooses, to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman is now trying to discuss; but we are currently discussing a procedural matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not seek to raise points of order, or any other points, while I am on my feet. This is a procedural motion which will enable the House to decide whether it wishes to discuss the merits and content of the Bill, and I suggest that we keep to it. No points of order can arise.

Sir David Price: As I have said, the Bill deals with none of Southampton's transport problems, and I therefore think that it would be a waste of the House's time to proceed further with it. Let me refer any hon. Member who considers that an irrelevant consideration at this stage to the story of the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill 1988. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the only possible advantage of the proposed system—it is not even a circular system surrounding the shopping centre; it is a distorted U-bend—is the provision of a "mickey mouse railway" for the kids. I am, of course, entirely sympathetic to the case that could be made for experimentation with some novel form of transport that could bring the majority of Southampton's citizens closer to the city centre, and bring people in from outside.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As my hon. Friend knows, we are debating whether we should take parliamentary time to consider this Bill. Is he aware of the proposal for a light rail transit system linking Fareham with Gosport, and with an underwater, under-harbour link with Portsmouth, which may proceed in due course if parliamentary time is available? The matter is currently being studied, but giving parliamentary time to the Southampton Bill might prevent proper consideration of a much more sensible scheme.

Sir David Price: That will interest many hon. Members. Most of us who are here tonight are probably sympathetic to new transport systems, and to the idea that they should be integrated with parking. My real objection to the Bill is that it achieves none of the objectives that we consider desirable, and is taking up parliamentary time for the sake of a scheme that will not secure a common public aim with


which many of us sympathise. That is why some of us have called it a mickey mouse scheme. Moreover, it has no tourist advantages—it is only a little U-bend around the middle of Southampton—and is environmentally damaging. One of the glories of Southampton is its old walls, which the scheme would jeopardise.
Hon. Members should consider how far the terms of the Bill correspond with the system that they think will result. We have not been told the names of any of the supposed great private sponsors, but without the money the whole project will collapse, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South conceded. On that ground alone, the Bill is a waste of parliamentary time.

Mr. Hill: There was great excitement in Southampton city council about a year ago, when Mr. Peter de Savary bought Eastleigh airfield. The press office rushed into print the story that Mr. de Savary might be prepared to link Eastleigh airport with the city centre. That, too, was pie in the sky—and we have been eating a lot of that pie.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the motion.

Sir David Price: Let me return to the question of where the money will come from. Given the time that has elapsed since the Bill's Second Reading in another place, I should have thought that by now it would be clear—

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of challenging your ruling, but may I draw your attention to the guidance that was issued when we last debated a revival motion—on a Bill that affected my constituency? The Chair ruled that, as the Bill had not been presented to the House for Second Reading, it was in order for "reasonable latitude" to be granted for the background to be explained, and that the Chair could therefore allow
more than the customary flexibility."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 672.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that, when the hon. Gentleman said that he would not dream of challenging my ruling, he meant what he said.
I think that the House will agree that, so far, I have allowed the "reasonable latitude" advocated by the occupant of the Chair on that earlier occasion. It is for the Chair to judge how much latitude should be provided and how reasonable it should be, and I think that so far I have been quite reasonable.

Sir David Price: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that it is relevant to the motion to ask the promoters for more information about where the money will come from. The hon. Member for Norwich, South made it clear that it would come from the private sector, but I know of no single corporate investor who is proposing to put money into the project. As for the individual Southampton citizen, as far as I am aware no great queue of would-be investors has formed outside the civic offices, as happened in London at the time of the electricity privatisation. I am reminded of the notice in the window of a famous Dublin undertaker, which read: "Funerals arranged—self-drive service".
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the Bill makes no constructive contribution to the real problems relating to Southampton's city centre and its local businesses. It is about as helpful as throwing a

drowning man both ends of a rope. I do not think that we should waste the House's time any further, and I very much hope that the motion will not be passed tonight.

Mr. Michael Colvin: As the House must be well aware by now, we are debating a revival motion, not a motion for Second Reading. So far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have shown considerable understanding when hon. Members have strayed a footstep or two into the detail of the Bill. The detail must be considered to some extent, because, if the revival motion is not carried this evening, the Bill will be killed off completely. Our views on both the principle and the detail are therefore relevant to what is essentially a procedural motion.
Let me declare an interest—not a pecuniary interest. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), comprises part of the suburbs of Southampton: mine covers the western half of the blue horseshoe that surrounds the city, while his covers the eastern half. My constituents and I are frequent travellers in and out of Southampton, as I have been all my life. Some people go there to work, some to shop and some to visit Southampton's two theatres—and very good they are, too—or its museums and art galleries. Southampton has a great deal to offer, although my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) would be the first to admit that it is probably not the tourist mecca that some others cities represent.

Mr. Hill: We are trying to make progress with the sporting facilities at Lordshill. I understand that my hon. Friend opposes the scheme, for many reasons. We are short of an ice rink and all other sporting facilities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straining my reasonable latitude.

Mr. Hill: The point that I am trying to make to my hon. Friend is that it is not much good having a people mover if there is opposition to sporting facilities in the city.

Mr. Colvin: I am not sure whether you would like me to respond to that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Viggers: Southampton needs an ice rink, but Gosport has one. It will be on the route of the Gosport 1.0 Fareham light rail transit if and when—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back, please, to the motion on-the Order Paper.

Mr. Colvin: On the-pRint made by my hon. Friend the Member for Test, I have taken my lead from democratically elected local representatives—the parish council of Nursling and Rownhams, which would be seriously affected by the planning application to which my hon. Friend referred. We must pay attention to the views of democratically elected local representatives on ice rinks, tennis courts, and the people mover.
Southampton is, par excellence, a transport city and experiments of this nature could appropriately be carried out there. It is Britain's premier gateway to Europe. Moreover, 60,000 people travel into and out of Southampton every day. That represents 120,000 movements into and out of the city each day. That could rise to 200,000 movements when the proposed city centre


development goes ahead. I am told that it would be funded completely by private enterprise money and would cost £1 billion. Transport pressures in the city will then increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to out-of-town shopping. That raises another interesting point. My constituency suffers from many pressures. There is much pressure to build out-of-town shopping precincts in the vicinity of Romsey, but my constituents hotly resist such development. They would prefer to travel by some means of mass transport system to Southampton, thereby bringing prosperity and jobs to the city, instead of having to tolerate unnecessary development in their own backyard.

Mr. Janman: If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, the implication is that someone who lives in one of the outer suburbs of Southampton, such as Lordshill, would be able to get on to the rapid transport system and go to the centre of the city. If, however, he looks at the proposals as outlined on the map, he will see that the rapid transport system does not go anywhere near any of the outer parts of the city. It goes round the periphery of the city centre.

Mr. Colvin: If my hon. Friend would contain himself —that is the first and last time that I shall give way to him —he would hear that most of us who live in and around Southampton are subjected to considerable traffic congestion. The city of Southampton is not well endowed with car parks. There are about 15,800 car parking spaces in the city. One of the advantages of the proposed people mover is that additional car parking places for my constituents who want to go into Southampton could be provided on less valuable ground, thereby releasing the ground at present used for car parking for more intensive development.
I should like to be able to park my car in a convenient car park and then get on to the people mover to go around Southampton. I do not enjoy walking round the city on a wet day. As Southampton is in the south of England, hon. Members with constituencies elsewhere might presume that it is a lovely, dry and sunny place throughout the year. It is not. According to the Meteorological Office, in the past 10 years, Southampton had on average 119 wet days out of 365. When one walks from the car into Southampton city centre to shop or to go to work, one needs an umbrella or a raincoat one day in three. It would be much more comfortable if one could get on to a people mover.

Mr. Keith Mans: How will the proposal help to reduce the congestion between my hon. Friend's constituency and Southampton?

Mr. Colvin: I shall come to that point in a minute. There is congestion on the roads when one drives in and out of Southampton, but we are dealing in this motion with traffic congestion in Southampton because it does not have a people mover. Southampton would be an excellent place for a rapid transit system—or what has been referred to in the debate as a people mover. They are becoming popular elsewhere in the world. I have a list of the cities that enjoy such a facility.

Sir David Price: If my hon. Friend wants to improve public transport from his constituency to Southampton, he should work with British Rail and the county council so

that the system is sited over the existing railway line. He might then achieve his aim. This, however, is just a mickey mouse scheme in the middle of Southampton.

Mr. Colvin: I take my hon. Friend's point. That would require another private Bill. I wish that these matters could be proceeded with by means other than private Bills and the need for procedural motions.

Mr. Viggers: This is the third time that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has referred to the proposal as a mickey mouse scheme. I submit that that is unfair to mickey mouse. Disneyland has just such a system. It works extremely well because it is designed exactly to meet the needs and shape of Disneyland, whereas this scheme is not designed to meet the needs and shape of Southampton city centre.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could return to the motion before the House and get away from Disneyland.

Mr. Colvin: I trust that in cities such as Jacksonville, Miami, Bordeaux, Sydney, Toulouse, Strasbourg, Orly, Taipeh and Chicago private Bills were not required for either the municipality or free enterprise to construct the people mover systems that those cities now enjoy. A people mover was constructed in Lille in 1983. Admittedly, it was a small, mickey mouse system to begin with, but it was so popular that it was extended three times and has now carried over 130 million passengers in total.

Mr. Peter Snape: Perhaps in Lille and the other cities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned they did not have mickey mouse politicians similar to the right-wing bunch of school boys sitting alongside him while he makes a serious attempt properly to debate the motion.

Mr. Colvin: After that helpful intervention I shall continue.

Mr. Hill: I have been going to Strasbourg for a considerable time and I have never noticed a railway on concrete lines going through the city. The only little railway there is for tourists. It is shaped like a Noddy train and pulls about four coaches. Is that the railway to which my hon. Friend is referring?

Mr. Colvin: I have not had the advantage of going to Strasbourg to see the railway, but I will go now and have a look at it. I have not been to the cities that I mentioned, but perhaps my hon. Friend has.
There are three options facing Southampton. First, it can do nothing about its traffic congestion. Secondly, it could, given a fair wind, as it is trying to do, secure the passing of the revival motion so that it can introduce a light rail system at ground level, which would conflict with existing traffic and cause even greater problems. Thirdly, it could have a so-called people mover such as that recommended in the Bill. It would be electronically powered and automatic with unmanned vehicles. It would probably run on rubber wheels and it would be on a segregated guideway, which would mean that there would be no waiting. It would probably have great passenger appeal. I would certainly use it. It would not conflict with any of the existing roadways and would not add to congestion or exacerbate existing traffic problems. It would have to be either under ground or above ground. The proposed system is above ground level. That view was


shared by Her Majesty's Government, when, in April 1989 —the House has been at this for a long time—Lord Brabazon of Tara said:
This is one of a number of private Bills providing for new light transport systems in our major cities. Potentially these systems have many advantages: for example, where segregated from other vehicles, they achieve faster speeds than buses; they also have the flexibility to cope with gradients and curves beyond the capacity of conventional railways."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 1989; Vol. 506, c. 463.]
He also said that the Government had no objection o the Bill and that he hoped that the other place would give it a Second Reading, which it did.
If a magic wand could be waved, I should like to see a people mover operating in Southampton. I would certainly use it. Surely it is up to Southampton and its elected representatives to decide. It is not for us to dictate to Southampton on such a matter.

Mr. Ashby: What weight would my hon. Friend give to the elected Members of Parliament from Southampton, both of whom are against the scheme? Should weight be given to the Conservatives on the council who, as I understand it, are equally opposed to the scheme? Should weight be given to some 86 per cent. of the population of Southampton who took part in a wide survey of 3,000 to 4,000 people?

Mr. Colvin: That is a weighty question. I hesitate to draw a comparison between hon. Members elected to this House and councillors elected to the city council when it comes to weighing up the relative power of their opinion and the value of their judgment. We are debating this matter in this House and, therefore, we must give priority to the opinions of the elected representatives from Southampton in the Chamber—my hon. Friends the Members for Test and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen is a Minister, so will be unable to speak, but I believe that he shares the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Test.

Sir David Price: On his interesting democratic point, does my hon. Friend accept that when a Bill is before the House, the views of local Members of Parliament are of overriding importance? If a motion is before the local city council, it is quite different.

Mr. Colvin: As one would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has put far more eloquently the point that I was trying to make. Members of Parliament are sent to this place to use their judgment and that is precisely what we shall be doing after having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Test because it is his judgment to which we shall listen most carefully. The importance of listening to elected representatives from Southampton is that they will have to live with the people mover if it is constructed and they represent those who may have to pay for it if it is not viable. So, the principal question that we must consider is whether the people mover will be viable and, if not, in discussing this procedural motion, are we saying that the people of Southampton will have to pay for it instead?
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh hinted that he was in favour of the principle but not necessarily in favour of this scheme. I accept that and I shall now deal with some of the interventions by my hon. Friends. I have distinct reservations. The failure of the scheme to connect directly with the suburbs is of paramount importance

because it means that my constituents in Romsey could not get straight on to it to come into Southampton, bat would have to clog up the roads to get there. There are problems in the Waterside part of my constituency where the A326 is a well-known death trap. It is congested at Totton going into Southampton over what is known as the red bridge. If the people mover connected directly with the Waterside part of my constituency either by a bridge or a tunnel under Southampton water, I should be the first to vote for the revival motion. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is no use producing a mickey mouse system that just goes round the centre of the city. It has to connect with the infrastructure.

Sir Anthony Grant: I have been listening to the debate with keen interest because we talk about such matters in Cambridgeshire, which has similar problems that may come before the House. I have listened to my hon. Friends' criticisms of the Bill and for the past hour we have been listening to criticisms from hon. Members who know a great deal more about this than I do. We are being asked to provide for the revival of the Bill so that it can have a Second Reading. In view of all the Bill's obvious defects and the opposition to it, would it not be more sensible to refuse to allow the Bill to be revived so that the promoters and everybody else can take on board all the points that have been made, together with the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the criticisms about the mickey mouse nature of the scheme, and come back, if necessary, with a much more sensible scheme? Therefore, is it not logical for the House to refuse to allow the Bill to be revived?

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has really made his speech. His is a sensible proposal and I am sure that hon. Members will take it on board.
My other criticism of the system as proposed in the Bill is the failure to complete the so-called loop. Originally it was a loop and that seemed to make sense, but now it is a horseshoe because one section has been removed. I am told that the loop could be completed later.

Mr. Hill: The circle was cut because Liberal Democrats would not support socialist councillors in impinging on the park land that was necessary to complete the central loop.

Mr. Colvin: I understand that, but I do not want to debate the detail of the route too much as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have to call me to order.
Many points have been made about funding. Of all my reservations, the one about funding is the most important. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh asked where the money is coming from. Southampton city council issued a press statement on 2 February 1989, in which it said:
The Council has resolved that all the money needed to build and operate the people mover must come from the private sector, whose benefit would exceed its contribution. The people mover is forecast to generate operating profit as a business in its own right.
That sounded very good two years ago, but in a statement which hon. Members will have received in advance of the debate, the promoters say:
Although the City Council have initiated the scheme for rapid transit, it is intended that the system should be financed almost entirely by contributions from developers and from other sources in the private sector.
The council is not quite so bullish as it was two years ago, which begins to sow seeds of doubt in my mind about financial viability. In its circular to hon. Members, it


anticipated the question whether developers in Southampton would provide some of the funds. It answered that simply by saying:
Developers have publicly expressed support for the scheme, and indicated a willingness to make a financial contribution; consultants' calculations suggest that there are substantial, real commercial benefits to be gained from the People Mover; firm commitments from developers can only be obtained at a later stage.
There is the rub. By "later stage", they mean that, when developers have a prospectus before them from which they can judge the detailed merits of the people mover and its financial viability, they can make a judgment. I have a list showing 20 of the so-called financial supporters—big businesses in Southampton—which would be prepared, we are told, to put up money: Debenhams, Marks and Spencer, Ocean Village Ltd., Associated British Ports, a major land owner in the dock area of the city, Southern Electric, Imry Holdings Ltd, the Pentagon—I am not sure what that is, but I am sure that it is not the one about which we hear so much in the news—Drawlane Transport Group, Southampton Citybus and British Rail, all of which are big transport operators, Tarmac Construction, Mowlem, Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd., Bovis, P. Trant Ltd., Southampton city council, Briway Transit Systems, Brown and Root Vickers Ltd., and Von Roll Transport System Ltd. They will not know whether to invest until they see a prospectus, which they will not see unless the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
We should consider whether a revival motion could be influenced by our opinion of Southampton city council's preferred mass transit system. It has selected the Briway Transit system following international competition against the major suppliers of transit systems. It selected Briway because, first, it employs modern and proven technology; secondly, it fulfilled the tender specification in every respect; thirdly, its performance was greatly superior to other transit systems in terms of quietness, speed, gradient climbing and ability to negotiate six-metre radius turns smoothly and comfortably; fourthly, it was competitive in price, and viable to operate with low fares, which is very important; fifthly, it was environmentally friendly and energy efficient; sixthly, it would be built with the minimum of disturbance and noise; and, finally, it was demonstrated to be a system capable of great flexibility in its applications and one which could be easily extended to serve suburban communities. As a Member of Parliament who represents one of the suburbs of Southampton, I particularly like that latter reason. The council might have added that it is British—another good reason for selecting Briway. That has all given Briway the stamp of approval, which is helping it to win valuable export orders in Australia, Malaysia, Korea and Taiwan. It is something for a British company to beat the Koreans and Taiwanese at their own game.
Briway is being evaluated by three major airports in the United Kingdom as well as in Leeds, Bristol, Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent and Kent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), as Transport Ministers, have been greatly impressed by demonstrations of the Briway system at the designer's test track.
If that stamp of approval for Briway were not enough, I can report that Birmingham Centro, the corporate name of the West Midlands passenger transport executive, has just heard from the Department of Transport that it has singled out Briway as the benchmark against which other systems are being evaluated for the Midland metro. That is a tribute to Mr. Alan Bristow, the owner of Briway, and to his designers and engineers, who have a world-beater in an increasingly competitive market.

Mr. Hill: I should like to make it perfectly clear that at no time has anyone said that the system is not capable of doing the job. We have said that the elevated track, close to the medieval walls of the city, is environmentally gruesome. I am going to see the chairman of Briway in about two weeks' time to reassure him that his train was not criticised and that if there is a sensible transport scheme for the city of Southampton his company could be one of the forerunners.

Mr. Colvin: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that; it may influence the way in which I vote. I am delighted to know that he is going to see the Briway system. I have seen it, as have many other city councillors who are interested in the project.
It is probably true that if a canvass survey were carried out to which people responded realistically, more people would be in favour of a mass transit system in the middle of Southampton than against it. That would also be true if one took in people from outside the city of Southampton, who would be able, like me, to enjoy the system without the risk of having to carry the can of paying for it in due course were it not a financial success.
I have concluded that Southampton city council has produced, in essence, a good scheme, although there is no doubt that it is capable of improvement. The council has selected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test said, the right system in choosing Briway as the mass transit system. Whether in today's economic climate the system should proceed is debatable. The revival motion provides for that.
I shall listen carefully to what hon. Members have to say and especially to what my hon. Friend the Member for Test says. He is the hon. Member who is most closely affected, so I shall listen to him before I decide how to vote.

The Minister for Shipping and Public Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to explain the Government's position. Clearly, there has been great interest in the Bill among Conservative Members. The system is undoubtedly controversial within the Southampton area, but it is not for me to comment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) feels strongly. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is following the issue very closely but, obviously, he cannot take part in the debate.
I reiterate that the Government's position is strictly neutral. We are grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for tabling the motion so that the House can reach a decision. However, it is for the House to decide; it is not for the Government to have a view or to take a line, and the Government will follow their usual practice in these matters.

Mr. Peter Snape: The debate has been interesting so far, if only because of the presence of some Conservative Members who have been attracted to it. I understand that there are opposing views about the proposal in Southampton and elsewhere in that part of the world. The procedural motion will enable those views to be heard and it will also enable the petitioners against the Bill to put their case before the House. A few minutes ago, there was discussion about the proper role of Members of Parliament in private Bill procedure. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) agrees, at least for the moment. A number of hon. Members with no pecuniary or constituency interest in the scheme will hear the views of the petitioners and recommend accordingly. Although there are many unsatisfactory aspects to the private Bill procedure, private Bill Committees have worked well over the years. Most petitioners have pronounced themselves reasonably happy with the conduct of the Committees and with the way in which their objections have been heard and, on some occasions, resolved. It would seem from what we have heard so far—especially from some Conservative Members—that there is no pleasing some hon. Members. I will not comment yet on the position of the hon. Member for Test whose speech we eagerly await.
When I saw some of the characters who had been attracted to the debate, I knew that we were in for an eventful, if not an informative, evening. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I know that he participates eagerly in these debates. He expressed the view strongly that it was not for my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who introduced the Bill with his customary ability, to take instructions from third parties. My hon. Friend consulted a third party whom we do not recognise in this Chamber, after he had made his speech. I only wish that some Conservative Members had done the same in the course of similar legislation.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I will give way in a moment. I have not finished with the hon. Gentleman yet; in fact I have barely started. I will give way at the appropriate time.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was taking instructions from someone else. The Bill has, after all, been supported by democratically elected members of Southampton city council. I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes gave slavish devotion to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which was opposed by democratically elected councillors and which was supported only by the paid directors of a trust port. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect that Opposition Members at least are more impressed by the views of democratically elected councillors of whichever party than by the views of paid directors of a particular trust port. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that aspect of his previous argument. In my view and in that of the Labour party, it is perfectly reasonable and honourable for the sponsors of private Bills such as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South to conduct themselves in that way.

Mr. Michael Brown: When the democratically elected councillors of Glanford, of Cleethorpes and of Humberside voted in favour of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, why did the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not accept the democratic view?
I raised the point about the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) consulting persons outside the Chamber because, when I was in the hon. Gentleman's position, many Opposition Members made great play of the fact that I was doing what the hon. Gentleman has done. I am merely trying to suggest that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should bear in mind all the actions that he and his hon. Friends took when I was in the position of the hon. Member for Norwich, South.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that, in responding, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will remember that we are dealing with the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill and with its revival motion.

Mr. Snape: Those matters will be uppermost in my mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was talking about the promoters of the Bill. In this case, the promoter is the democratically elected local authority. In the case of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, the promoters were the paid directors of the trust port to whom the hon. Member for Brigg arid Cleethorpes gave slavish support in the course of the legislation.

Mr. John Garrett: In response to the hyperthyroid intervention from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), let me say that my hon. Friend may be interested to know that I spoke to people—who do not exist in the eyes of the House—after my speech simply to point out that the opposition to the Bill was lengthy and eccentric, so they might be here for some hours yet.

Mr. Snape: I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I am being rude. I should have thought that that conclusion might have been drawn by the people who do not exist when they saw some of the hon. Members who had been attracted to the debate.
The basic objections to the Bill appear to be politically based. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has pointed out, Southampton, like many similar towns—

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: Let me continue and then I will think about it. The hon. Gentleman has intervened six times, but he has not shed much light on our proceedings despite the thousands of words that he has expended during those interventions. I might give way to the hon. Gentleman in the next few minutes if he is nice to me, but at the moment I am dealing with the eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, who pointed out that, like other similar towns and cities throughout the country, Southampton has a severe traffic problem—[Interruption.] I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—non-stop sedentary chatterbox that he is—would appreciate that the citizens of Southampton are concerned about traffic congestion, and


that that is why their elected representatives have proposed a scheme which they hope will help to alleviate some of that congestion.

Sir David Price: It will not.

Mr. Snape: Again from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman points out that it will not. It would be difficult, under our archaic procedures, for local authorities to propose a scheme overnight involving the digging up or laying of tracks in every single suburb in every city centre in the country. One has to start somewhere. I shall not linger for too long on the details of the Bill, but I understand that it would facilitate the start of a scheme which the city council hopes will eventually contribute substantially to the alleviation of traffic congestion in the city. It appears to me that that is a worthy objective, and it ought to be given due consideration under the procedures of the House.

Mr. Janman: rose—

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Snape: I shall come to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) shortly. I have been referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and I now give way to him.

Mr. Colvin: It is clear that if a people mover were constructed in Southampton, it would have a considerable environmental impact on the city. In such cases, it is open to city councils to apply to the Department of Transport for a section 56 grant. On this occasion, the Minister was up and down like a Jack-in-the-box; there was no time to intervene in his speech. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would like to ask the Minister—in the hope that we shall get an answer—whether Southampton has applied for a grant or intends to do so and whether it would qualify for such help from taxpayers' money as well as community charge payers' money.

Mr. Snape: Two matters directly arise from the hon. Gentleman's intervention. First, I could not put such a question as eloquently as him. Secondly, knowing the Minister as I do, I very much doubt whether we would get a straight answer to that question. I fear that if we got a straight answer, and if it were anything other than no, the Minister might be an ex-Minister first thing tomorrow morning. No hon. Member on either side of the House would want that even if Labour wants them all out come the next general election.

Mr. McLoughlin: Let me clarify the matter. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) did not have time to intervene in my speech. I usually try to keep my remarks short on these occasions, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I understand that Southampton city council had originally hoped to finance the project entirely through contributions from developers and others but that it has now concluded that there will be a need for a public sector contribution, including a section 56 grant. However, no application for a section 56 grant has yet been made, or received.

Mr. Colvin: Taxpayers' money.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside refers to taxpayers' money in the sort of tone that Mary Whitehouse might use when referring to certain television programmes. It seems that our fleeting moment of agreement is at an end. Whether in Southampton or in any other city, it would be fairly difficult to financee a people mover or any sort of public transport scheme without any public money. It would be fairly difficult to find a city anywhere in the world where some public money had not been spent on transport. It is entirely to the credit of Southampton city council that, in embarking on the project, it has tried to attract private finance. Should the motion be approved, we shall be able to hear in detail what the council has done, what it expects to do and how much interest has been generated. If, on the other hand, the motion is defeated because of the ideological objections of the far right of the Conservative party, we shall never have the opportunity to hear about that, even though a considerable amount of public money will have been spent on taking the Bill through the other place and preparing it for its passage through this House.

Mr. Janman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not thinking of me when he referred to the far right. Let me come to the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). It was a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to chastise my hon. Friend and to say that he was inconsistent. The recent exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) concerning the possibility of taxpayers' money being put into the system supports my argument. One cannot compare support for a trust port scheme with support for a local authority scheme. The trust port scheme that my hon. Friend supported was not going to make any demands on the public purse.
In this case, however, we have a city council—albeit democratically-elected—which wants to do something which will make demands on the public purse in such a way as to involve central Government finance. Perhaps, therefore, it would be right to take note not just of what the democratically-elected council says but of what the two local democratically-elected parliamentarians say, which is that we are talking about public finance, including taxpayers' money. That is an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is absolutely right and is being entirely consistent.

Mr. Snape: I was reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt you can see why, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interminably long and predictably inaccurate. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill will involve public money because the busier the port becomes—[Interruption]. The Minister ought to listen to this because he is looking bewildered. The busier the port becomes, the more the public sector will be called upon to improve road links to the port because it will be said that heavy traffic is passing too close to people's homes. With the Department as it is, that is presumably exactly what will happen. The Minister can usually find money for road developments but not for public transport.

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that a substantial amount of public money has been going into various light rail schemes which have met the


criteria for section 56 grants. Those schemes include a large development under way in Manchester. My hon. Friends gave permission for the Sheffield scheme to go forward and we are currently evaluating the Centro scheme.

Mr. Snape: Strictly speaking, the Centro scheme has nothing to do with the motion before us, but I have a deep personal interest in it because it passes through my constituency. I noted from the Minister's comments a week or so ago that he has managed to find money for a roads package around Birmingham, even though he is still evaluating the public transport advantages that wall be provided by the Midland metro.
Let me return to the motion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Test is no longer in his place. I said earlier that I intended to refer to him. I understand his basic objection to the proposal, which is a political objection. In his view, the fact that Labour-controlled Southampton city council has made the proposal is good enough reason to oppose it. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said so far will lead me to any other conclusion, although there are other reasons that we might consider. It is apparent, for example, that the hon. Gentleman is not the sort of man who would ride round the city centre on the people mover. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman prefers a good brisk walk on his way to the gymnasium or the squash court. All credit to him for that; it shows in his remarkable physical appearance. But the other citizens of Southampton may not be quite as fit and athletic as the hon. Gentleman, and they may want a people mover. The fact is that we do not know, and tonight is not the occasion on which to find out. Given the amount of public money involved, it would seem eminently sensible—

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Gentleman again as I do not have another 15 minutes to spare. His hon. Friend the Member for Test ought to be here if he has a point to make. Although the two hon. Gentleman are very similar physically and spend a lot of time playing squash or whatever they do together, we had better wait for the hon. Member for Test to make the point.

Mr. Janman: rose—

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman guarantees that his intervention will be a normal sentence long—

Mr. John Garrett: And sensible.

Mr. Snape: Well, I cannot accept that it will be very sensible—in fact, I know that it will not be—but if he promises that it will be short, I will give way.

Mr. Janman: It will be short and not sensible. The hon. Gentleman is implying that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is not very fit and that therefore he will not be able to gain access to this system because it is elevated and he will not be able to climb the many flights of stairs that he would have to climb to get into the carriages.

Mr. Snape: For once there is a grain of truth in something the hon. Gentleman says. It seems to me that the scheme has even greater merit now because in no time at all the hon. Member for Test will be even fitter than his hon. Friend. That is another argument in favour of the

scheme. For all of us who have listened to the hon. Member for Test over the years, the idea of being guaranteed his presence and common sense for many more years is appealing.
The hon. Member for Thurrock and some of his hon. Friends make great play with their concern about public money. I remind them that preparing such legislation is not cheap. Our learned friends do not work for a guinea a word any more. I understand that the price has gone up considerably. I understand, further, that the costs that the poll tax payers of Southampton have inevitably incurred, as would happen in the case of any other legislation to do with public transport, already amount to around three quarters of a million pounds.
This means that the debates about the merits of this scheme and the objections to it ought to be fully heard. That investment, which has been made to bring improved public transport to the crowded and congested city of Southampton, should receive a fair hearing in this place through the procedures that I outlined earlier. I hope, therefore, that the House will give this proposal the go-ahead this evening and that we can see in detail what is proposed and what are the objections. To defeat the Bill at this stage would not only indicate the right-wing bias and ideology of certain Tory Members present this evening; it would also be extremely expensive for the poll tax payers of Southampton—a fact of which I and my hon. Friends will remind them in the time up to and including the next general election.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: The Chair has already said that in discussions of this kind it allows a certain latitude with regard to what might otherwise be an extremely narrow point. I rise purely to be of assistance to the Chair in that I do not want to talk about the merits of the Bill at all; I want to talk about the motion. I do so for a very serious reason. It is not only that I happen to represent a south coast constituency where we are interested in moving people conveniently and quickly and therefore interested in the ways other people may find to deal with this problem; it is that some years ago I was a member of the Committee which considered the Ginns and Guttridge (Crematorium) Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members in this crowded House are fully aware of the details of that Bill and I will not rehearse them this evening. But I remind the House that that was the longest private Bill Committee this century. Not only did it have to have revival motions but it ran over from one Parliament to the next. A general election intervened and the Bill had to be brought back again.
The point is that in the end, when the Bill came back from the Committee, on which we had worked literally for years, it was defeated in the House. The Bill—for the sake of hon. Members who were not then in the House, although I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember it—concerned a proposal for the building of a crematorium in the city of Leicester. The discussion was about whether it was a suitable site, whether the technology was correct, whether the traffic arrangements were right, and so on.
It was a tragedy that the system of working through a private Bill and the procedures of the House on that occasion provided absolutely no protection to a moderately sized company which needed to promote a Bill


of this nature. Although a carry-over motion contains within its terms a provision that there shall not be renewed fees because the Bill is being renewed, that does not mean that the costs to the promoters cease. The costs of legal advice and of counsel continue.
It was said earlier this evening that the members of the legal profession were probably not unduly concerned that our debate might take three hours as opposed to one. I am quite sure that there was no great objection to the fact that the Bill to which I referred took three years.

Mr. Janman: I just want to give my hon. Friend some information that supports his point. I quote from an article in the Sunday Evening Echo written by the local government correspondent, Kate Thompson, which says:
A secret memo written by project manager Steve Keys"—
who I think is somebody connected with the company that has been set up to further the cause of this project—
reveals that a further £176,000 will have to be pumped into the project if more parliamentary time is won tonight.
So if one shares the concern of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about waste of community charge payers' money, it would be a very good thing not to allow the motion to go through tonight.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because that is the danger. If the Bill is likely to succeed, there is every reason for us to give it a fair wind, particularly if we have no direct, immediate interest in its provisions. If there is a scheme for the improvement of transport in the great city of Southampton, the citizens of the even greater city of Portsmouth will wish it well, but all the evidence is that this is a highly controversial proposal and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who spoke to the motion, would agree that there is no evidence of broad unanimity in the city of Southampton. All that we have to do is convince the House that what the people of Southampton want is right.

Mr. John Garrett: It has the support of the majority of councillors. Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard that?

Mr. Griffiths: I will rephrase what I said. I am trying very hard not to be politically controversial. I want to talk about the practicalities. It is true that the majority of Southampton city council has given approval to this scheme, but it is perfectly reasonable to say that something of this nature should not be based on a single political party. Three major political parties are represented on Southampton city council and I should have thought that something based on one party would fall within the definition of being politically controversial.

Mr. Snape: It is a very interesting constitutional theory that it is unfair to put legislation through if it is supported by only one party. That is not really a doctrine, I should have thought, for which the previous Prime Minister would have had any time. However, I will turn to the more realistic parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. None of us knows whether the Bill deserves the wide support which the hon. Gentleman is urging. If the motion is agreed, we shall find out. It will then be for the House to approve or reject it after it has been considered in Committee and we

have seen how detailed the support and opposition are and the grounds for both. Would not that be a more sensible way of proceeding?

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not agree with the conclusion that, although the Bill may have majority support in Southampton city council, it is perfectly legitimate for the council to claim that that is what it wants. Hon. Members do not have to say that, because a majority on Southampton city council wants the Bill, we must rubber-stamp it. Our job is to protect the broad interests not of Southampton city council but of the people of Southampton and all those who would say that the House must give its approval. The House is not being asked to rubber-stamp something that has been decided in Southampton; it is being asked to say that the measure should be agreed.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), I am not as opposed to the scheme as some of our colleagues are. However, based on my experience, I believe that we should not incur further expenditure at every stage of a Bill which probably will not receive the support of the House or be put into operation, thereby leaving the costs to be borne by the promoters.
In the case of the Ginns and Guttridge (Crematorium) Bill, one of the tragedies was that a relatively modest company put forward the proposal. The procedures of the House were allowed to continue. It was not the company's fault that it took years, but there were enormous costs. However, it was a commercial business. It went into the matter with its eyes open. It decided to put its own money forward, and it lost. This is a different situation. We are talking not about whether those who put money into the scheme for the so-called people mover will receive profits. That is definitely not a matter for discussion tonight; it is a matter for Second Reading. However, it is clear that the longer the Bill is allowed to run the greater will be the burden to be borne by the community charge payers of the city of Southampton. Members of Parliament are entitled to consider whether a proposal from a political party in a certain city should merit the support of the House when it will involve costs on people who clearly do not unanimously support that proposal.
The House would probably be willing to support a proposal for a tramway or a rapid transit system to alleviate the problems of people who wish to reach the city of Southampton and then go to their ultimate destinations. Such a scheme would have broad support across the political spectrum. I should be more impressed if some members of each party on the council were strongly in favour and some were opposed than if a scheme appeared to have only one-party support.

Mr. Snape: On the council.

Mr. Griffiths: On the council. Therefore, it would be even more difficult to raise the money necessary for the scheme to proceed and to make the Southampton community charge payers' investment worth while.
I am told that £0·75 million has already been spent and I am sure that not all the final bills are in. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) pointed out that a document, the authenticity of which I am not aware, refers to a sizeable tranche of public funds that are already committed. We are talking about large expenditure. There comes a point at which we should say, "Unless we are sure


that the scheme will be practical, we should say no." That is our responsibility—it is not to decide whether we want a horseshoe-shaped, circular or elevated scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has strong feelings on those points. However, with respect, they are not what we are deciding. We are deciding whether to encourage the scheme, knowing that it is highly controversial, has unbalanced political support and may never come to fruition. The scheme has fulfilled a valuable purpose. It has provided an opportunity to discuss a rapid transit scheme in Southampton. Much of the preliminary work will be borne in mind elsewhere and people will consider what has happened.

Mr. Snape: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. It is a little contradictory to talk about how much money has been spent on the Bill and then to say that there has been a valuable discussion. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It would be expensive if we abandoned the scheme now. We would have had better value for money, to use the phraseology of the Conservative party, if we had used the ten-minute Bill procedure. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill began in the House of Lords, which is one reason why it has come to us so late as to need a carry-over motion.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I trust that I did not suggest that the expenditure that has been incurred has been wasteful. I am sure that I did not use that term, and I did not intend to imply it. I suggested that that is the amount that has been spent. We should always take advantage of what has been obtained from such expenditure. Work has been done surveying the route and on the examination of technical problems, and it could be adopted elsewhere. However, expenditure is not an argument for adopting the scheme. There comes a time when it is sensible to say, "Enough is enough. We went down the wrong route to start with." It is better to stop and use what can be learnt from mistakes and then to find a scheme that has broad support. An alternative scheme with broad support would cost less because of the work that has been done.
Hon. Members would be wise to reject the proposal and say that we are concerned not with the merits of the scheme but with the reputation of the House for encouraging a project that is likely to prove expensive and not come to fruition.
I sat through the Committee which considered perhaps the worst example that is possible. Since then I have consistently come to the House to support private Bills. I have supported carry-over motions and done my best to facilitate private Bills because I realise the risk and cost that promoters face. I have given my support because of my experience. But at the back of my mind I recognise that if only at an earlier stage someone had made it clear to Messrs. Ginns and Guttridge that their Bill would not go through the House after it returned from Committee because a solid block of people was determined that there would not be a crematorium on that site, a great deal of money and a great deal of the time of the House would have been saved. That would have improved the reputation of the House.
Tonight we have an opportunity to show that the House is a valuable safeguard for those who wish to make proposals which involve expenditure of public funds and

which, although they may be good ideas, are badly thought out and presented. I hope that the House will reject the motion.

Mr. Tim Janman: You may be intrigued, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a Member from Essex takes such a close interest in a revival motion which relates to the fine city of Southampton. If I may take a few seconds to explain, I was a resident of the city for almost six years. For a brief period I served on the city council. For those six years, I was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). I take this opportunity to send my best wishes and regards through my hon. Friend to all my friends in Southampton, especially those in the opposition group on the city council and the many people in the Conservative party with whom I worked so closely and successfully for so long. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pass on those regards.

Mr. Snape: It took long enough to say.

Mr. Janman: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he so graciously did to me, if he wishes to make any point about what I am saying.
In addition to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), it is important to stress that we are discussing not merely a revival motion but a revival motion for this Session. The whole crux of the debate is whether the House should see fit to revive a motion on a Bill which seeks to do something which will have a major, but not necessarily in any way positive, effect on the city of Southampton when it is clear that the overall feeling of the people of Southampton, expressed through different avenues—city councillors, county concillors and Members of Parliament—amounts to a democratic deficit, through whatever conduit one looks at the matter. There is clearly no proven democratic surplus in favour of the Bill coming back to the House.
On that basis, we should consider whether we wish to revive this motion when there is nowhere near unanimity in the city about the scheme. The Bill is specific. It would implement a specific rapid transit system in Southampton. As there is a wide range of views about the merits of the proposal in Southampton, it is worth spending some time on examining the reasons that lie behind the lack of unanimity.
I shall give six main reasons why there is so much discussion in Southampton, and no consensus, about whether the Bill should be revived. But there is one general reason. Two of my hon. Friends—one of whom is about to leave the Chamber and may wish to stay while I refer fleetingly to what he said—mentioned cities which are going ahead with or already have rapid transit systems.
My hon. Friend the Minister cited Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield—all British cities. Manchester and Sheffield are at least twice the size of Southampton, and Birmingham is between five and six times the size of Southampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned several cities. When I lived in Southampton, I lived not far from his constituency. I was only just a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Test. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned Toulouse, which is the third or fourth biggest city in France, with a population of well over half a million. He mentioned one


or two other cities, and there was some debate about how accurate and detailed his knowledge of them was. Lille is considerably larger than Southampton.
The pertinent points about the two sets of examples given by my hon. Friends is that there is often a case for putting in some sort of rapid transit system in a city, irrespective of whether it is entirely privately funded, entirely publicly funded or funded with a mixture of finance. However, a certain concentration of population is necessary to make the scheme realistic.
In terms of population, Southampton is only just a city. I do not mean that disparagingly—I very much enjoyed the six years that I lived there—but its definition as a city or a big town is a borderline case. In conurbations the size of Southampton, a realistic proposal is rarely made for putting in a rapid transit system. In view of that, the proposal for Southampton would not be so bad if the proposed system served most of the city. It seeks to serve only a tiny area. I shall come to that later.
Furthermore, the proposed system does not use existing or old and disused British Rail track. It does not use natural transport corridors within the city. Unlike many other rapid transit systems which are running successfully, the Southampton scheme has not been initiated by the private sector. The whole idea has been initiated by the public sector—the Southampton city council. Those are some general reasons, as a preamble to my remarks, why I do not think it is realistic.
I come back to the reasons which underline the fact that there is a complete lack of unanimity in Southampton. Later I shall give the House some information about how one could construe that there is not in the city a democratic consensus in favour of the Bill being revived. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, we are talking not just about a procedural matter but about whether we want the Bill to proceed, or whether we wish to extinguish it once and for all. If the House does not agree to revive the motion, we will effectively carry out the wish of the majority of the people in Southampton, who think that the rapid transit system should not proceed. Obviously it will not proceed if the House decides to extinguish this animal so that it does not continue to breathe.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is on dangerous ground. I do not believe that any comprehensive survey has been done to find out whether people are for or against the proposal. Certainly anecdotal evidence gained from people in my constituency and in Southampton suggests that people are divided, but I think that there is a general feeling in favour.
I had the opportunity to talk to taxi drivers about it. The Southampton taxi consultative council, representing radio taxis, the Southampton Taxi Owners Association and Streamline Taxis, had a general discussion and generally came down in favour of what is proposed. But no quantitative analysis has been done. Even if there had been, I remind my hon. Friend that as an elected representative he is on dangerous ground. I remind him of Edmund Burke's dictum that we are here to use our judgment and that we betray rather than serve the people we represent if we sacrifice it to their opinion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are beginning to drift into a Second Reading debate. We are dealing with a procedural motion as to whether the Bill should be revived or not.

Mr. Janman: Of course taxi drivers would be in favour of a rapid transit system, because they would earn a lot of money by taking people from the outskirts of the city to the centre so that they could get on the thing to whirl them round the periphery of the city centre. I am sure that the cab drivers would be licking their lips in anticipation.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Mr. Janman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to answer more fully the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, who wishes to leave the Chamber. As a former resident of Southampton, I believe that the scheme is laughable. Not only is there no need for it, but its overall effect on the city will be negative in many ways.
As to the proof about whether or not there is clear, democratic consensus and unanimity, let me give my hon. Friend some pieces of evidence which show that there is no unanimity or consensus. A recent telephone survey by a leading newspaper in Southampton, which covered about 4,000 people, had a 60 per cent. response in opposition to the scheme, certainly in the form specified by the proposed legislation.
A petition has also been organised, and already it has 5,000 signatures. My hon. Friend will know, from his experience in the House and in politics generally, that that is a large petition. It is difficult to find people to go out and get signatures. The fact that 5,000 have already been raised is interesting. My hon. Friend may not be aware that a street survey carried out in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) showed that 88 per cent. of those interviewed did not want the scheme.

Mr. John Garrett: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about the telephone survey about which he was so keen? Can he tell the House whether the place of residence of those telephoning was established during the survey? Would he care to compare it with the survey carried out by the London School of Economics, which showed an overwhelming majority in favour? Will the hon. Gentleman give us more details about the telephone survey and the notoriously unreliable system of carrying out surveys?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the risk of tedious repetition from the Chair, I remind the House once more that we are not discussing the merits of the Bill; we are discussing whether the Bill should be revived. I recognise fully that, in discussing that motion, it is necessary to refer to the Bill in order to construct an argument, but it is not in order to go into detail which would be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill, were we to reach it.

Mr. Janman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I may be going into slightly too much detail in order to answer genuine interventions by colleagues.
May I recommend that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) directs his question to a newspaper called The Reporter, which incorporates the Southampton Guardian? From the name of the newspaper, I presume that most of the people who read it live within the city


boundaries of Southampton. The newspaper says that the people who rang up were its readers. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 2,015 did not want the scheme and that only 1,743 did. It was The Reporter, No. 289, of Wednesday, 19 December 1990, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult the article. He could also contact the newspaper if he wants further details.

Mr. Michael Brown: As you rightly say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surveys showing the number of people for and against the proposal are a matter for Second Reading. But does not my hon. Friend agree that what is relevant to the motion today is the people who will be adversely affected by the project? Is it not right to consider people such as Mr. A. Godsby, whose cafe will be knocked down? There are 18 similar properties in the road in which he lives, and they would all be wiped away. Therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that, although it may not be appropriate to consider whether the majority are in favour of or against the proposal, we should consider those who will have their properties flattened and be put out of business?

Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) referred to additional public expenditure, and there will have to be a considerable number of compulsory purchase orders in order to force people living in a supposedly free society to vacate their properties, whether domestic or commercial, in order to allow this rapid transport system to pass over what was their property.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Janman: I will in a moment.
My hon. Friend's intervention reminds me of a well-known Southampton resident called Mr. Knox who has a flat near where the elevated section will go. He is worried that it will go through his front bedroom.

Mr. Snape: I am belatedly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am listening to him with great care, as his arguments are always well marshalled and his cogent thoughts always benefit the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) seems to be getting over-excited. To return to Mr. Knox and the cafe owner—

Mr. Michael Brown: It is going through his kitchen.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that with a delightful giggle. I am sure that that is amusing, but if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) can persuade his hon. Friend to relax for a second or two, perhaps I can have his attention.
These matters are vital. If we accept the motion tonight, the petitioners, who will presumably include those who are to lose their homes, will have every right to put their case before a Committee. But if Southampton city council decided to build a ring road or any other road around the city centre, it could bulldoze as many houses as it liked under the compulsory purchase order procedure without any reference to the House, a Committee stage or any democratic involvement by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). The reform of that procedure is long overdue. It applies only to public transport matters and to railway developments. A road development in the area could have gone ahead without any reference to the House.

Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his intellectual integrity and rigour to bear in the debate. Hon. Members will note with interest what he has said.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman understand it?

Mr. Janman: I do understand the hon. Gentleman. His west midlands accent is not too strong. I always take note of what he says.
I do not want to take up too much more time, as I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Test will have an opportunity to speak. Also, I am getting quite hungry. However, I have to say that, for six specific reasons, it would be better to reject this revival motion and thereby kill the Bill now. The six reasons—which are also the reasons for the lack of democratic consensus in Southampton—are: the cost, the damaging effects on the environment, public opposition, the damage to the city's fabric, the limitations of the proposed system, and the lack of proven need for the system as devised.
On the question of the provision of public money, we have already had a hint from the Government that taxpayers' money could be involved if the scheme were ever to see the light of day. The city council has consistently refused to write into the Bill a guarantee that public money would not be involved. Of course, local authority public money comes from community charge payers. Socialist councils seem to forget that they do not have any money of their own, that the money they spend belongs to their citizens. Therefore, any fanciful talk about funding such a scheme with money from the private sector, come what may, is, to say the least, misleading.
The route that has been chosen is absolutely useless. It skirts the city centre, connecting a lot of places that in themselves are fairly meaningless. If one looks at a map, one sees that it follows a sort of inner ring road. The job that this rapid transit system would do, at a cost of £40 million—probably £45 million by the time it was actually built—could probably be done by a few minibuses. The amount of money involved would be very much less, and such a system would be far more profitable.
The whole idea is deeply unpopular, but, in that regard, I do not intend to repeat the comments that I made following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. There is clear evidence that a large number of people in Southampton are against this system. An elevated track would be disliked by the elderly, the handicapped and mothers with young children in buggies or prams.
The system is opposed by a number of environmental groups in the city—Southampton Commons and Parks Protection Society, the Friends of Old Southampton, the City of Southampton Society, Southampton Conservation and Southampton Environmental Forum. Those bodies certainly want this revival motion blocked. They do not want to see 30-ft concrete pillars around the old part of the city centre, in front of the old city walls. They do not want the negative impact that it would have on the many parks in the city, with the consequent loss of flora and fauna and the undermining of the peace and tranquillity that one can enjoy on a summer Sunday afternoon.
There would be general pollution and increased traffic congestion, with people driving into the city to use the system. Taxi drivers in particular will want to see it there. It would destroy parts of the existing urban fabric, and


generally create noise pollution, and damage many parts of the city, including the waterfront and other sensitive and historic areas.
Does it make transport sense? No. As I said earlier, and as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), it would not be integrated with British Rail. Southampton has eight stations. The system would not be integrated with bus or ferry services. Access to it would be mainly by car, so the volume of road traffic would be increased, rather than decreased, despite the fact that a decrease in the amount of traffic is what one normally assumes to be the objective of a rapid transit system.
I come back to the very important question of cost and of who is going to meet it. Already, £0·75 million has been wasted on this absurd monstrosity. As I said earlier, quoting the Southern Evening Echo, a secret memo, about which the city council would not have wanted the public to know, says that a further £176,000 of community charge payers' money would have to be spent if we were simply to allow this revival motion to pass. The construction cost has been estimated at £45 million, and the railway would need to achieve 11 million rides a year to make a profit —that in a city of only 220,000 people. The arithmetic does not add up, and the statistics are laughable.
I explained that the city council refused to give an absolute guarantee, to be written into the Bill, that the system would be totally privately funded. It knows in its heart of hearts that the scheme is not economically viable and could never be profitable, and that it is the poor old community charge payers who would have to pick up the tab for that white—or should I say red?—elephant.
The council's current position of intent is meaningless, unless it is prepared to inscribe it into the Bill. Because of the lack of enthusiasm and absence of unanimity, the system is unlikely to secure the patronage of the 35,000 passengers a day that it would need to be profitable. Southampton is a fine city and a major regional centre, but it has competition from Bournemouth, Portsmouth, and Winchester. Although Southampton has some tourist attractions, it is mainly an industrial city and is not a place that the public necessarily think of as one offering tourist attractions. I welcome the efforts made by the city council when I lived in Southampton, and now, to improve the city's appeal, but it is fanciful to claim that a little train travelling around the city's perimeter will make any difference to the number of tourists.
No developers or major retail stores are committed to the scheme, and it seems unlikely that they ever will be. The project would waste community charge payers' money; it would be silly of the House to agree to a motion concerning a rapid transit system that no one really wants. The city's two Members of Parliament, who are elected by a much bigger turnout of the voters than are Labour city councillors, also oppose it.
The scheme has been conceived by the public sector, and is not the product of an entrepreneurial venture from the private sector. It has sprung from the womb of public empire building, which is typical of Southampton's Labour council. The proposal is unpopular now, and the system would be even more unpopular once the

population started living with its environmental effects. The system would be an appalling burden on the people of Southampton. I ask the House to defeat the motion.

Mr. Michael Brown: You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have had something to do with private legislation over the past five Sessions, since 1986. I appeared before the House on behalf of the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill with a revival motion on not one, but two occasions. Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall the basis on which the Opposition made their case against that legislation—it was on their opposition as a matter of principle to revival motions. How they have stood on their heads tonight.
We heard a different story this time from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) from when he spoke against the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Oh what a difference when he appeared before the House to talk about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Oh what a difference when the shadow Leader of the House responded to the revival motion that I moved on that occasion, two and a half years ago. There he stood at the Dispatch Box, denouncing the motion to the House, and asking how a promoter, who had already used up the time of one or other House of Parliament, dare come back to waste the time of the House for yet another Session. Yes, they are the guilty men tonight—with their previous attitude about matters of principle and revival motions.

Mr. Frank Dobson: He has gone round the bend.

Mr. Brown: I heard what the hon. Gentleman muttered under his breath. He said that I had gone round the bend. He is the one who has done a somersault. He is standing on his head. Two years ago during the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, when he was the shadow Leader of the House, he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that, as a matter of principle, the House should never agree to such motions, regardless of whether the Bill had been considered in Committee.
Therefore, I expect to see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, if not the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), in the Lobby with us tonight. I shall study Hansard closely tomorrow to see whether he has been consistent.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also participated in the debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and used the argument of principle against a revival motion.

Mr. Snape: I am sorry to upset these flights of fancy —if not oratory—but will the hon. Gentleman consider the argument that I put to him earlier? This Bill is promoted by a democratically elected local authority and has completed all its stages in another place. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was promoted by a board of directors and it had not gone through any procedures in another place. I hope that he will accept that there is a difference between local councils of any, or all, political parties and paid directors. That was the difference that I pointed out to him earlier, and so far he has failed to tackle that argument.

Mr. Brown: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have his argument. However, I wonder why he voted against the


revival motion for the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill for generating stations in my constituency. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also voted against it. That Bill could not be promoted by a local authority, but had to he promoted by the electricity companies. That Bill also passed through the House of Lords. During that revival motion I said that we should assent to it because it was the first opportunity for the House to consider the Bill. All those Opposition Members who are normally aficionados of revival motions when I move them, who incidentally seem to have disappeared tonight—I do not know where they have gone—

Mr. Dobson: They did not know that the hon. Gentleman was going to speak.

Mr. Brown: It is always very pleasant to have a large audience from the Opposition. I get quite used to it. With a bit of luck the Benches will fill up quickly in a moment when hon. Members see my name on the screen.
However, to return to the issue of principle, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has come up with a novel idea. He says that the House should agree to a revival motion if a Bill is promoted by a local authority because it has some basis in democracy, but not if the Bill is not promoted by a local authority.
In the case of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill, as local authorities do not run those organisations, they cannot promote them.
Opposition Members have thrown that principle at me in the past few years, and now they should get a taste of their own medicine. For tonight's purposes we should put their argument to the House, and ensure that they have an opportunity to vote on the same basis on which they voted before. We shall see what happens.
As you have rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must not consider the Second Reading of the Bill tonight. What we must consider is the way in which the Bill is being presented. It is normal procedure for the promoters of a private Bill to engage parliamentary agents—in fact, they are required to do so. I make no complaint about that; all parliamentary agents, including those representing the promoters of this Bill, are well-respected and highly regarded organisations.
This Bill, however, has more than parliamentary agents to assist it. One would expect the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) to be in the Chamber, bearing in mind the reprimands that were thrown at me from both sides of the House—and, I believe, from the Chair on one occasion—when I was not in the Chamber during a debate on a private Bill of which I was in charge. But I see that the hon. Gentleman has returned. I hope that the sponsors of this Bill will engage in the sort of behaviour that was expected of me by the House, especially the Opposition. We must ensure that even-handedness and fair play are maintained.
It is, of course, right and proper that a Member of Parliament should also represent the promoters, presenting their case to the House, and the hon. Member for Norwich, South did that. But I wonder what the House would have thought if, when I moved the revival motion for the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, an Opposition Member had held in his hand the plan of campaign drawn up by a public relations outfit explaining how to buy off

hon. Members supporting the Southampton rapid transit proposals. I think that there would have been goodness knows what to pay. Opposition Members would have had plenty to say about public relations companies being up to their ears in it, and so forth.
I have news for the House. I have here a document suggesting the best way of securing support in the House, submitted to Southampton city council. It says: "Target Members of Parliament. Target the city's Back Bench MP James Hill." I do not know how you feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the idea of targeting my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Dobson: Scarcely precision bombing.

Mr. Brown: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment: he is mentioned in the document as well. Others, it says, include "Christopher Chope"—my hon. Friend the Minister. And so it goes on, with a litany of other hon. Members who could be nobbled.
The next part of the document deals with how to nobble Ministers and their civil service advisers. It names the relevant Departments as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, and suggests that the key political figure is "Mr. Michael Portillo, Minister for Public Transport". I hope that Southampton city council will wonder whether it has received value for money, given the out-of-date advice with which it has been provided.
According to the document, the Transport Department's political adviser, Elizabeth Buchanan, should be approached. And so it goes on. Good heavens! I see that the Minister to whom I am Parliamentary Private Secretary is also mentioned, on the ground that— according to the document—he represents the Department of Trade and Industry. For the past three months, I have been going to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to assist the Minister there.
The document suggests that leading civil servants may also need to be approached to prepare the way for a ministerial meeting. Have his civil servants been leaning on my hon. Friend the Minister? Has he received any request for a ministerial meeting from those civil servants, on behalf of Southampton city council? I think that we need answers to those questions.
I am making a serious point. As well as the normal procedures, we have seen an outfit coming into play in the belief that it is possible to mislead the House. That may be why Southampton city council has been unwise enough to launch the revival motion: it imagines that it is a simple matter of engaging parliamentary agents—but I think, M r. Deputy Speaker, that the time has come to discuss how it was that the hon. Member for Norwich, South came to be the Bill's sponsor.
The document continued:
We have already advised that the ideal Member to sponsor the Bill is James Hill. We are aware that he has been subjected to considerable pressure and that it may be that the best that can be achieved is for him to be persuaded to adopt a neutral stance.
The idea of my hon. Friend adopting a neutral stance is fanciful.
In the event that Mr. Hill cannot be won over an alternative sponsor will need to be found.
A list of names follows, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He spoke, very sensibly, on the motion. The list goes on and on. The document continued:


Whoever is chosen, a major priority of the project team will be to ensure that a proper brief is prepared with all the relevant issues adequately addressed.
I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, South was properly briefed when he spoke this evening. His information does not seem to square with some of the information that we have received.

Mr. John Garrett: I can write my own speeches.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he can write his own speeches. Southampton charge payers will want to know why on earth thousands and thousands of pounds are being spent on briefings and speaking notes when the hon. Gentleman admits that he can write his own speeches. The community charge payers represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Test are having to fund all this.
I should never have been a party to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill if that sort of thing had gone on then. If any Opposition Member had discovered that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was being dealt with in the way that this Bill is being handled, he would have demanded to know what was going on behind the scenes —all the funny business and all the nobbling of Ministers, civil servants, special advisers and my hon. Friends. Finally, they had to nobble an Opposition Member to sponsor this Bill. They would have asked what was in it for me and what the Register of Members' Interests showed. It is funny how silent they all were.

Mr. Dobson: Would the hon. Gentleman have advised Southampton city council to do what Associated British Ports did, with his acquiescence—to organise a champagne party for everyone who was willing to stay up to vote for the Bill?

Mr. Brown: I thought the hon. Gentleman would come to that. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when champagne was served to any of my hon. Friends who were kind enough to speak in the debate it was paid for by me out of my own pocket. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has mixed up that Bill with another Bill. I think that he meant to refer to the Felixtowe Dock and Railway Bill of five or six years ago. There were great celebrations both in the House and even more in my constituency when Royal Assent was given last year to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Act. However, Associated British Ports did not pay for the champagne; I paid for it. One or two Labour Members were spied in the Smoking Room with half a glass of champagne in their hands, poured out by me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Champagne parties and Bills of many Sessions ago may be interesting, but they are hardly relevant to the proceedings this evening.

Mr. Brown: Where are the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? They would have had a great deal to say about funny business behind the scenes and about public relations companies nobbling Members of Parliament and Ministers. Where are they? Perhaps the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East can tell me.

Mr. Snape: I assure the hon. Gentleman that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nor

my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) are drinking champagne, whether provided by the promoters or anyone else.

Mr. Brown: I do not doubt that for a moment. However, I would have expected them to be showing concern about the way in which this private Bill is being brought before the House. I would have expected them to express the same concerns as I have been expressing. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were here, I am sure that he would have been apoplectic and unable to contain his rage—just as I and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Test feel. We are extremely concerned at the way in which the Bill is being promoted.
I have given clear reasons why, on a matter of principle, we should not allow the revival motion to proceed. I have taken some leaves out of the Opposition's book and I hope that they will vote with me on the basis that all the arguments that I have deployed have been theirs on previous occasions.

Mr. James Hill: This has been an engaging debate. Unfortunately, we have not heard much from the Opposition. I shall try to keep within the parameters of the debate. This is a revival motion. When one hears that word one imagines that the animal is nearly dead. This can be kept alive for ever by throwing community charge payers' money at it. Even if the Bill is defeated this year, another, could easily be brought forward. There is a phalanx of advisers, public relations men, solicitors, attorneys and parliamentary agents. Everything on which the £750,000 has been spent could be itemised, but I do not intend to do so because there is enough evidence without humiliating hon. Members who have been drawn into this by the lobby of the House.
I have some papers that were given to Southampton city council so that it would know all about the scheme. The instructions to the council say:
There is no compulsion that the system must be built should the Bill receive the Royal Assent. However, Parliament requires to be satisfied that the proposed system is of sound concept in all respects and that Southampton city council is committed to the ultimate construction of the Southampton rapid transit system.
We have heard that the council is not committed to it. If it cannot find the investors, it will do nothing. Because the council could not achieve political harmony in its council chamber, all the money will be wasted.
I have begged the Bill's promoters for the past two years to withdraw the Bill and try to achieve political harmony and work towards a transport system that will serve the whole city. We should work on those lines, not on this esoteric construction in the sky which will simply look nice for the tourists. We need something for the people who have to travel to work in Southampton every day whether it is sunshine or showers.
The instructions go on:
The parliamentary agent has advised that a large majority vote by the city council in favour of depositing the Bill should help the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
As I have said, we need co-operation.
A small majority vote in favour or a vote split along party lines would cause concern in Parliament as would only limited support in the city for the Bill and the system.
We have heard that there is a split on party lines.
The company has already been set up and there is a horde of people who may be public relations people, a


project team, advisers or consultants. The Bill contains the power for the council to create a private sector company to run the system and alternative powers for it to dispose of or franchise the operation of the system to another body.
If the council is unable to find investors—I doubt that it will be able to do so—what is its only alternative? 1 t must use enhanced land values in other parts of the city to finance the system. It did that for Citybus, which is now virtually owned by the local authority, and it will do exactly the same with this railway system.
Everyone agrees that the environment is a serious matter. There are five environment groups in Southampton. The Green party and the Liberal Democrats are against the rapid transit system. Labour may care to ignore Conservatives and say that they have no conception of the environment, but almost every environmentalist in Southampton is against the Bill. However, they can speak for themselves; they are very capable people.
The financial structure of the system is probably its most worrying aspect for Southampton's 207,000 citizens. We did not even know what it would cost until the House of Lords insisted on an estimate of expense. I have it here, and it is dated 30 November 1988. The elevated guideway is estimated at £12 million, easements at £2 million, stations at £5 million, one or two little odds and ends at only about £1 million—hardly worth mentioning—cars and vehicles at £14·4 million and purchase of land, minerals and permanent rights of way at £9·9 million. I have been hearing that it will cost only between £35 million and £45 million. That estimate, which was made two years ago, is £59·4 million. Its cost must have increased by at least 10 per cent.
We have been fighting a Bill about which only half-truths have been told. We were told something to keep us happy. The people of Southampton were not aware of what this system would do to the city. As I have asked many times, would any Member of Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Covin), allow such a train to be built in Winchester, Salisbury or perhaps even in Romsey? These trains are not suitable for areas of medieval England.
The Briway system could eventually cover the whole of Southampton, but not on an elevated track, which is three times as expensive as any other means of transporting trains. Hon. Members should recall their council days, when such expense always had to be pruned. No account is taken of the expense of this system. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was reported as saying at the Labour party conference that light railways have to be subsidised or they do not work. He gave the impression to a reporter from the Southern Evening Echo—he may deny it—that it was best for the Labour council group to wait until it had taken office, when it might be able to help with a pretty big subsidy. The hon. Gentleman broke into print—

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Mr. Hill: I do not know whether the story was true or not, but that is what was reported. Anyone can say, several months later—

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must know from his local paper that I corrected the story in a letter to the paper

and in a letter to the council. I said that the reporter had got it wrong and the paper accepted that. As the hon. Gentleman must know, a statement was put in the press.

Mr. Hill: Indeed, I wrote a letter about the accusation against the hon. Gentleman. I knew that what he was basically saying was good socialist policy and he cannot deny it. It is good socialist policy to say that small railways do not pay, so we should subsidise them. That is what he was really saying at the conference.
We have heard a lot about finance. Whether the railway is subsidised is neither here nor there. We have been told that there will be some big investors. The local authority led us right up the garden path by telling us that Peter de Savary who, at that time, had just bought Eastleigh airport was going to provide a railway into Southampton to meet up with the people mover. Most of us know Peter de Savary pretty well. If he does not get planning permission, he moves on. In this case he received planning permission for Eastleigh and made a great business success of it.

Mr. Colvin: Then he moved on.

Mr. Hill: As my hon. Friend says, he moved on.
I wondered who would be the biggest investor in Southampton to think of taking on part or even the whole of the project. I asked the port manager of Associated British Ports Holdings about that and he in turn got in touch with Sir Keith Stuart. A letter was sent to me on 14 January 1991 which stated:
Dear James, You asked me to let you know ABP's position so far as the proposed Southampton rapid transit project is concerned. It would seem that the project has quite some way to go"—
I agree with that wholeheartedly—
before achieving tangible support from those organisations who might have a direct interest. ABP would be indirectly affected by the proposed rapid transit system but we do not have any significant involvement with the project at this time.
Again, that is a bit of a smokescreen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside talked about drawing up a prospectus. The local authority has drawn up a prospectus. It has tried to get money from investors, but it has failed abysmally. It has about £60,000 to do a little project. If people in the market place were considering putting money on the prospectus that Southampton city council has put forward, they would be well advised to go to their solicitors immediately because there is no security in this venture.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just arrived, on time as always. I hope that he will not try—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One thing is certain. I have not come out of the Bar as I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has, with his red face.

Mr. Hill: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will protect me from the accusation that I have come out of the Bar. I have been here all evening from 7 pm.

Mr. Colvin: It is not possible in law to write a prospectus without having secured the passage of a Bill through Parliament. That means that any so-called prospectus is not worth the paper on which it is written and cannot be judged as a prospectus.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend has pointed out, as he did before, that no prospectus can be written until the passage of the Bill has been secured. But that has not stopped the


council trying to obtain money from almost everyone. When I first discussed the financial structure and all the various people clinging to it and sucking the substance out of it, it occurred to me that Arthur Daley might describe the scheme as "a nice little earner". It has been just that. Some £750,000 has been spent, much of it in officers' time. I believe that £33,000 has gone to a public relations firm, and a tremendous amount—more than £200,000—has gone to consultants. The whole thing is a mess of pottage. We must try to get shot of it tonight.
This is the first occasion on which we have debated the present Bill, but the more I read of what the local authority does, the more disturbed I become. I was born in the city of Southampton, and for two or three generations my family has admired that city. It is a terrible thing to see what the local council has done to it. I even asked the other day whether we should get the Prince of Wales down as a consultant to look at what is happening to our city. In architectural language, it is the big shed syndrome, and every big shed in Southampton looks as though it will not be there in 20 years' time. There is no planning as such.
The council has pushed ahead with the railway scheme. The difficulty is that it was allowed to get its way because there did not seem to be anyone who could stop it while it was telling half-truths. Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. We have heard a lot of truth tonight.
Most hon. Members present will think that this is a parochial issue with which they should not get involved. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for supporting me tonight. It is as well that we are to vote on the matter shortly, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to go a little wider than is usual on a debate on a revival motion.

Mr. Richard Holt: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned with Southampton and with the Bill, but it may interest him to know that the county of Cleveland has already spent more than £750,000 in respect of a similar project in Teesside which has not even got as far as the project that we are discussing. That shows how community charge payers' money is being squandered the length and breadth of the land.

Mr. Hill: I thank my hon. Friend.
I suppose that, in the end, every politician—whether he is elected by 25 per cent. of the electors or by 70 to 75 per cent., as is usual for most Members of Parliament—must safeguard the financial interests of those who put him here. If I were called upon to defend what I have done this evening, I would have to say that I have done it specifically to protect my constituents who pay the community charge.

Mr. Peter Fry: As I explained in an intervention earlier, I am a member of the Select Committee that has been examining the whole question of light rail schemes, which will shortly be producing a report. Obviously I cannot say what will be in that report as that would be most improper. However, a great deal of the evidence has been made public, and 1 wish to place on record what I consider to be a fundamental point.
In an intervention I pointed out that light rail schemes are now being produced because they are the flavour of the month. Absolutely no regard is being paid to the amount of public money that is being poured out to consultants

and others in order to produce schemes without ascertaining whether they are the right schemes for the area in question.
Far more important in relation to the House is the fact that, if we are to have every local authority producing its scheme and trying to promote its Bill, that will make it increasingly difficult for those authorities that have schemes that will work and be accepted to find the time to go through the parliamentary process.
So, in my submission, those who recklessly bring forward proposals such as this are doing no service to public transport in this country, to light rail schemes or to community charge payers. In effect, they are wasting Parliament's time when we might be concerning ourselves with much more important matters.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 138.

Division No. 55]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Lamond, James


Barron, Kevin
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McNamara, Kevin


Bottomley, Peter
Madden, Max


Boyes, Roland
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meacher, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cousins, Jim
O'Neill, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Prescott, John


Dobson, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, John
Ruddock, Joan


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Soley, Clive


Gould, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Walley, Joan


Grocott, Bruce
Wilson, Brian


Haynes, Frank



Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Ingram, Adam



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Cope, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Curry, David


Beggs, Roy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellotti, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Body, Sir Richard
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Bowis, John
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Cash, William
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hague, William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hill, James
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Holt, Richard
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shersby, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Michael
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Kilfedder, James
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thorne, Neil


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mans, Keith
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waller, Gary


Mates, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wells, Bowen


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Miller, Sir Hal
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Moynihan, Hon Colin



Neubert, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Michael Brown and


Paice, James
Mr. Tim Janman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask you a question about the Division. You will remember that for many years now the Government have claimed from the Dispatch Box neutrality on private Bills and stated that they would support any private Bill in a Division. You will recognise that in the Division tonight even members of the War Cabinet voted in the No Lobby to defeat a private Bill. Have you or the Clerks been notified of the reason why the Government destroyed the Bill tonight when previously they always claimed that their neutrality meant that they would support any private Bill before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that the way in which right hon. and hon. Members vote is not a matter for the Chair—and a good thing, too.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight we have seen once again the farce of the way in which private business is conducted in the House. Have you been notified of any intention to bring forward reform of private business at an early stage? It must be in everyone's mind what a farce it is for the War Cabinet to have to adjourn so that its members can come to vote on a private Bill. It is high time we got the new procedure into use and did away with this farcical procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to read tomorrow's Hansard. In my hearing the Leader of the House dealt at length with the matter during business questions.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you cast light on the extraordinary suggestion that members of the War Cabinet have broken off their deliberations to come here to wreck a private Bill sponsored by a local authority to improve public transport in Southampton? Are you in a position to say whether the ideological crackpottery of the Conservatives has been taken to that length? Can someone tell us what sort of message is sent to the people serving in the Gulf when the order of priorities means that members of the Government come here specially to defeat a public transport proposal for Southampton?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The way in which right hon. and hon. Members vote has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have been attempts by the Government continually to obtain the consent and support of everyone for the war in the Gulf. Yet tonight the ideological prejudices and vendettas of the Government against a Labour-controlled local authority, which is promoting a private Bill through the procedure that it is bound to follow, have meant that they have broken off a War Cabinet meeting to come to the House to vote on the Bill. We should have a statement about the circumstances. Has any member of the War Cabinet intimated to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or asked your permission to make a statement to the House about the circumstances in which they place petty vindictive political advantage over what they consider to be the interests of the nation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no request for a statement. We must now get on with the business.

Parliamentary Pensions

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the proposals for improvements in Members' Pensions and Scheme Benefits to be contained in regulations under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.
Earlier today we had the Second Reading of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill. That dealt largely with the pensions, salaries and allowances of Ministers and office-holders. We now turn to the parliamentary pension scheme itself. There has inevitably been some overlap between the two in that several of the issues legitimately for this debate have already been raised in the previous one. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) quite understandably covered the most important ones because they are of greatest interest to Opposition Members. I make no complaint about that. I understand fully why he did it and I was almost tempted to do it myself. I hope that it will save time now, because it means that I can be brief.
Until the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987 was enacted, the scheme was contained in statute. But that Act gave us the power to make changes by regulation. It is a requirement of the Act that I should consult the trustees on any proposed changes to the scheme, and my predecessor and I have been in close touch with them on the regulations before the House.
I should like now to pay a proper tribute—I had to move very fast at the end of the earlier debate, so was unable to do so—to the trustees and to their chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for the sterling work which they put in on behalf of us all as Members of the House. I also join in the tribute to those in the Fees Office whom the right hon. Gentleman listed for what they do for us on pensions. I also thank the Treasury officials—I know that the Fees Office staff greatly value their assistance. I am pleased to be able to say that the regulations have been accepted by the trustees.
To move from statute to secondary legislation as a means of making changes to the parliamentary pension scheme means that the House may only reject or accept the relevant regulations. Because, however, of the need to be sure that the House has the opportunity to comment on any amendments, the Paymaster General, in May 1987, gave an undertaking that the regulations would be set before the House in draft so that hon. Members might make their views known and have them taken into account. That is the purpose of the motion. The regulations themselves are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The regulations make certain improvements in Members' early retirment arrangements and some changes in relation to Members of the European Parliament. They provide that Members who have accrued the maximum pension will cease to make contributions. They double the death in service gratuity in a way that will cover all those Members who, sadly, have died during this Parliament. They increase widows' and widowers' pensions from half rate to five eighths and they empower the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund to appoint an agent to acquire and dispose of the assets of the fund on

their behalf. I doubt whether the House would want me to cover them all in detail, but I should be happy to cover points at the end of the debate.
As the right hon. Member for Salford, East said, the proposals on widows' pensions, death in service benefits and the problem of excess contributions are all common to many other schemes. They are fair and modest and are to be welcomed generally. Others are technical and come into the category of what I might describe as tidying up.
I would, however, like to make two general points. First, the main benefits operate from 6 April 1988. That I believe is right. It means that they start broadly from the point at which the TSRB recommended them, and the Government accepted the recommendation. It would not have been fair in any way to disadvantage the widows of colleagues who, sadly, are no longer with us because of delays for other reasons in implementing the decision.
Secondly, I want it to be clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) pointed out in the earlier debate, that the benefits are being funded from within the scheme itself. As he said, they effectively come from the last actuarial surplus. The reason for stopping at a five eighths widows' pension is that that, together with the other improvements, exhausted the surplus. Hon. Members will want to be aware that if and when the surplus is exhausted—I say if and when—contributions would have to rise to pay for those benefits.

Mr. Ray Powell: In the earlier debate we talked about surpluses and the Treasury's contribution. I understand that if we had a surplus the Treasury's contribution would be less. Therefore, would the surpluses have been available if the Treasury had made a proper contribution and not the 4·5 per cent. that it contributes now?

Mr. MacGregor: The system was operated according to the present rules. However, as a result of discussions, there was some contribution to benefits as well as the change that was made to the Treasury contribution. The hon. Gentleman will know from our earlier debate that we are now proposing to take that issue to the TSRB. We explored that in some detail.
Judging from the representations that I have received and the comments earlier this evening of my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), to whom I listened carefully, the main point of contention left relates to former MEPs. Let me be clear what the issue is about. The background is that we have two pretty well identical pension schemes for MPs and MEPs. We are proposing to allow years as an MEP to count as service in the House for the purpose of the early retirement scheme in future and vice versa. What we agree to do here we will also implement for the MEP scheme. In other words, the symmetry will be maintained.
The only question is whether the years of service in the other Parliament should be those after the point at which the regulations are approved, or whether all years of service in either place should be included when an MEP comes here or an MP goes to the European Parliament.
That is a narrow issue, peculiar and particular to the parliamentary pension schemes. It is important to stress that. It is not an issue which ranges more widely to other pension schemes or arrangements. The point is also a fine


one and arguments can be advanced on either side. The cost will have to be met from the fund and it must be very small.
I do not want to go into all the details this evening if I can avoid doing so. I hope that it is sufficient for me to say that, on balance, I am prepared to look sympathetically at the representations that I have received and my objective will be to accommodate them.
Finally, I should say something about the costs of these measures. The additional cost of all these changes to the total standard contribution is about 2·25 per cent. The total standard contribution, on current estimates, would need to rise, were it not for the surplus, to 22·25 per cent. As I made clear in my speech earlier this evening, one disadvantage of the approach to funding the scheme which the trustees have said they favour is that Members' contributions could fluctuate—perhaps wildly—and if the total contribution were to increase to pay for extra benefits, that cost would automatically be split, pro rata, between right hon. and hon. Members and the Exchequer. We do not need to take decisions on that now. We shall, of course, have an opportunity to take stock of the position after the next Government Actuary's department report is published and when the TSRB has reported. I intend then to hold a debate, which will allow the House to express its views on both reports.
As I said earlier, we need now to get the new arrangements into operation so that the benefits can be paid. Once the House has expressed its opinion on these regulations, I intend to lay them formally and they will come into force 21 days later. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: I do not want to delay the House unduly. However, there are a few points that need to be mentioned. I refer, in particular, to the basis on which our pensions are calculated. Some years ago, it was recommended that our salaries should be based on a certain civil service spine. Then the TSRB suggested that we should receive 85 per cent. of the salaries on that spine. In other words, we were to get 15 per cent. less than we expected. In addition, we had to make a pension contribution of 9 per cent., whereas civil servants, including some Treasury officials who were pressing for the system that was to be applied to us, and whose salary scale was close to ours, had a non-contributory pension scheme. We were told that it was a question of what part of the spine the civil servants were on.
We are losing out on two counts. First, whereas civil servants have a non-contributory pension scheme, we have to pay 9 per cent. Our salaries would be higher were it not for the fact that those of civil servants are not reduced by way of pension contributions. Secondly, we receive only 85 per cent. of the civil servants' rate. It is time that these issues were examined in great depth and detail, and a look should be taken at recommendations that have been made in the past. I recommend that we should be put on the scale of first secretary or secretary.
For the first time ever, the Government are providing for ministerial redundancy pay. Indeed, Ministers and others will receive two pensions. In this context, let us consider the obvious inequities of the resettlement grant for Members of Parliament generally. Surely common justice demands that those inequities be removed before

redundancy pay for Ministers is introduced. Why should it be so simple to introduce legislation to benefit yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, Ministers and others? Why should that group have pensions paid immediately, whereas ordinary Members of Parliament must wait for recommendations to go to the TSRB?

Mr. MacGregor: The Bill is based on the TSRB's recommendations of two years ago—but I am proposing, on resettlement grounds, that the TSRB should reconsider that aspect.

Mr. Powell: I thought that I had emphasised that it would be a simple matter for you to institute. It seems to me rather selfish that you—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Powell: I mentioned you, Mr. Speaker, because you would be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, it seems selfish to introduce that benefit for Ministers and others, whereas the rest of us will have to wait.
I accept the point made about the TSRB, but I remain sceptical because we are all under the impression that we would be on a spine with the civil servants, but then we learned from the TSRB report that the proportion of salary allowed was 85 per cent. and not 100 per cent.
I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, but the 9 per cent. that we pay into the scheme and the Treasury's miserly 4·4 per cent. should be re-examined, so that the Treasury's contribution is at least compatible to that which would be made by a private business outside the House.

Mr. Peter Fry: I want to avoid covering old ground and delaying the House unduly, but I feel strongly not only at a personal level but on behalf of many Members of Parliament, past and present. The House should record its gratitude for the work done by the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and its thanks for the clarity of the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in trying to achieve progress. This issue is one that tends to be long neglected, but the only people who suffer are Members of Parliament, when they retire.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) clearly spelt out the reasons for the mess in which we find ourselves. He knows full well that it was a late-night deal, cobbled together because the House would not accept the recommendations on right hon. and hon. Members' pay —and it has created a number of complications.
It is relevant to make comparisons with schemes available to others. There can hardly be a scheme anywhere else in the country in which the employer's contribution is half that made by the employee, which places us in a special category. Either we can trust the contributions made by the Treasury and right hon. arid hon. Members, or we must look for improvements to the existing scheme.
Some might ask why the scheme should be improved, because Members of Parliament are, in comparison with many others, reasonably well paid. Despite the improvements made in recent years, many right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to learn how small a


percentage of their final pay they will receive as a pension when they retire. If I am fortunate to be re-elected and to reach my 65th birthday, I will have been a Member of Parliament for 26 years. One might imagine that length of service would entitle one to a full pension, but even after buying the extra number of pension scheme years that I am allowed, my pension will reach only 52 per cent. of my final pay.
Why are Members of Parliament different from people in other occupations? I shall try to give the Leader of the House a strong reason.
Earlier this evening I was talking to a colleague, who pointed out that when he came to the House he was earning twice the salary of a Member of Parliament. He had reached that moment in life when he was starting to earn a good salary and to progress, but he voluntarily gave it up to accept what was effectively half pay. Some people would say that that was his choice. But, just as in the age of noblesse oblige, I believe that an employer should be judged in the way that he treats his servants. Therefore, the Government should be judged on how it pays those who give public service. If we give excellent public service pensions to the civil service, on a non-contributory basis, surely we deserve some consideration when we contribute 9 per cent. of our pay.
A large number of hon. Members have given many years service, and have deliberately given up the opportunity to earn a lot more money. That peculiarity should be recognised. Although it has been said that we should not make comparisons with other Parliaments in other parts of the world, many of them recognise that relationship, and have a much shorter qualifying period before a Member of Parliament can obtain a full pension. I hope that that will be considered.
Although I welcome the increase in the widow's pension, I cannot for the life of me understand why we have not gone for the full two thirds widow's pension. That is allowed under the present tax regulations and is accepted in every modern pension scheme, but we deliberately pitch the widow's pension a bit below that level. It is not us who will suffer, but our widows—those wives who have to put up with a Member of Parliament as a husband and suffer all the privations and problems that wives often do. If there is any area where we should do the maximum that we can, then it is in helping the widows of former hon. Members. When this issue is next considered, I hope that that figure will be upped to the full two thirds.
Finally, like the hon. Member for Ogmore, I must refer to the question of resettlement grant. I understand that the normal retirement age is 65, and one's 65th birthday is a watershed. However, virtually everyone else in the country has some degree of choice about when they retire. This Parliament may be atypical, but when a Parliament runs on for longer than expected a number of hon. Members will lose the resettlement grant, whereas they would have received it if the election took place this summer or autumn, for example. This is not a very supportable case and the amendment, tabled and signed by more than 300 hon. Members, which would allow Members to take the grant, as long as they retired at the election after their 65th birthday, is acceptable.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask the Leader of the House a few questions about the resettlement grant. Under

the present scheme, what would happen if an hon. Member realised that the general election would be after his 65th birthday, and he applied for the Chiltern Hundreds on the day before his 65th birthday? First, what would happen if he did that voluntarily? Secondly, what would happen if he had a medical certificate which said that he should not continue as a Member of Parliament? We all know that a number of hon. Members are looking forward to the day when they can retire, but they stay so that there will not be a by-election. Ideally, in their own interests, some of those hon. Members should go a little earlier. If we are not going to get outselves into a terrible muddle over this, we must have a clear sign that the settlement grant will be paid on a fair basis—at the nearest date to an hon. Member's 65th birthday, whether it is just before or just after.
I am grateful for the improvements that have been made to the scheme, but they have taken a long time to come. However, in all honesty, I am not completely satisfied, and I think that many hon. Members appreciate that much more needs to be done if we are to give hon. Members and their dependants the pension scheme perhaps not just that we deserve, but the one that we pay for.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I had hoped to speak earlier, but let me now put on record my strong support for what was said by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I especially welcomed their concern for widows and widowers, and for Members who, having served in the House for several years, might receive little in the way of entitlement. I also agreed with what was said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the imbalance between Treasury contributions and ours.
For the first time, I have an interest to declare. As a former MEP, I am obviously concerned about the eight years in which I served in the European Parliament. I thank the Leader of the House for his opening comments, and I am glad that he is going to examine what we consider to be an anomaly in the treatment of Members of Parliament and MEPs.
The schemes were originally designed to be identical, and many of us supported that strongly: we wanted salaries and pensions to be the same in both Parliaments. We argued against a "Euro-salary", believing that, because Members belonged to their own countries, they should be governed by national conditions in those countries. It was a matter of regret to us when the early retirement provisions departed from that principle, and a matter of satisfaction when a change was proposed—although those of us who had already served in the European Parliament were left in a rather peculiar position. It would certainly be difficult for us to accept being relegated to an even smaller group of people disadvantaged by the timing of the measures if we were joined in future by former MEPs who were able to benefit.
I thank the Leader of the House for his willingness to reconsider the matter. It is a small problem that can easily be cleared up, but it is very important to those of us who are in that small category.

Mr. David Harris: Let me associate myself with everything said by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), both about the wider issue and about a position that affects no more than a dozen or so hon. Members who have served in the European Parliament.
It is always invidious to make special pleas on behalf of oneself, but I honestly do not think that we are asking for a concession. We merely feel that we should be treated in exactly the same way as other hon. Members who have been members of the pension fund throughout. It should be remembered that, as Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan was instrumental in determining that MEPs should be paid precisely the same salary, and have precisely the same pension terms, as Members of Parliament. I would not have it otherwise; I think that his decision was entirely correct. The early retirement provision contains a curious anomaly. We merely want to ensure that we are treated in the spirit of Lord Callaghan's proposal—made, I believe, at a summit meeting many years ago.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he has approached the matter. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) for his generous remarks. Lest there be a scintilla of doubt, let me make it clear—as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to whom he referred—that what he said came as a complete, albeit pleasant, surprise to me, and that I did not put him up to it!
I again thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, on behalf of a very small group of hon. Members who simply ask to be treated in the same way as every other Member of Parliament.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The House will be grateful to the Leader of the House for his succinct remarks in opening the debate.
I set out in some detail the views of the managing trustees in our earlier debate on Second Reading. There are some questions that remain unanswered and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to them by correspondence as soon as he can. All I would emphasise again now is that the trustees most strongly pressed for a two thirds widow's pension and that we shall continue to argue for that further change in the scheme.
The improvements for which the regulations provide are, of course, mainly in keeping with what my fellow trustees and I have long advocated. We must now hope that the Top Salaries Review Body will be as intelligently responsive as the Leader of the House to the further improvements we have been seeking.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have to declare two interests that relate to different points. First, we should not regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government as representing the taxpayers' interests and the rest of us as representing our own, or those of our potential widows or widowers. All of us are the taxpayers' representatives. I should prefer the trustees and the board to hear at least one person say that the 9 per cent. contribution is fair and reasonable, so long as the benefits for pensioners continue to improve, whenever that is thought sensible. I should much prefer to see a

larger-than-usual deduction from my salary so that the accrual of pension entitlement reflects the genuine conditions that affect most people when they enter Parliament.
It is possible to become a Member of Parliament before one reaches the age of 30 and for some Members to serve until they are 65 and to get close to the maximum entitlement, but that does not apply to most hon. Members. I should prefer an increase in the pension entitlement to be made available before 65. Anyone who has served as a Member of Parliament for 20 years or so and who chooses to go should be able to do so on full pension.
The regulations make a great deal of sense. I hope that Members of Parliament will continue to ensure that those hon. Members who are not as well off as others manage to make reasonable provision for their widows and children. What has happened during the past year, with younger Members of Parliament dying, provides us with a reminder that there is much private misery. However much the Members' fund may be able to help some, it is far better that there should be entitlements—which are some of the best in the country—so that people do not suffer unnecessarily if death overtakes an hon. Member at an early age.

Mr. MacGregor: I can respond briefly to the debate. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) knows, salary questions are not a matter for this debate. He referred to pensions and benefits. The question of the balance of contributions is, as he knows, going to the Top Salaries Review Body, as is the resettlement grant.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that we do not have particularly generous arrangements for ourselves, but we must be careful when voting about our own terms and conditions—hence the importance of ensuring that issues are referred to the TSRB for its recommendations. It is the TSRB recommendations which we have debated, both earlier today and now.
My hon. Friend referred to the resettlement grant. One peculiarity of service in this place is that we cannot choose when we shall retire. That is usually decided at a general election. If he was here this afternoon, he will know that I made that point.
My hon. Friend said that he hoped that we could move swiftly to a two thirds widow's pension. He asked why it was five eighths. I said in my opening remarks that that was agreed with the trustees because it brought us to the limits of the actuarial surplus that was then being discussed.
I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend about one point relating to the resettlement grant. Under the present arrangements, or those suggested in early-day motion 299, that would not be available for those who seek the Chiltern Hundreds. So those of my hon. Friends or anyone else who might be tempted to exercise leverage by applying for the Chiltern Hundreds to secure a resettlement grant would not succeed in getting the arrangements changed because it does not apply in those circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised one or two points in the earlier debate. I am sure that he will forgive me and understand why I did


not comment on them in the swift reply that I had to give to the debate. From memory, the one point that he wanted me to address was whether the House would be able to debate anything that came from the TSRB whether or not the Government came forward with regulations. I am sure that that can be dealt with through the usual channels if and when it arises, but at this stage it is a hypothetical question.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and the House will agree that the fact that I have moved fast in putting the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill to the House, implementing the earlier TSRB recommendations, and in putting as a matter of urgency to the TSRB the two points on which the House has today expressed particular concern, will show that I want to advance and settle the issues. One way of helping in that is to approve the motion now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the proposals for improvements in Members' Pensions and Scheme Benefits to be contained in regulations under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Motion made, and Question put,
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee B that it have power to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill so as to make, in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, provision for and in connection with the exercise of investigation powers by persons other than constables.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mrs. K. Morris

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but the case I have to put to the Minister is very important. I will be interested to hear her reply.
It relates to a constituent of mine, Mrs. Morris, who lives in a village called South Anston. She has a son, Simon, who is a spastic quadraplegic and is obviously severely handicapped. Before 1989, she received the higher rate attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance and, from 1985, the invalidity care allowance for caring for Simon. In 1989, Simon got a place at a residential school near Huddersfield. Obviously, Mrs. Morris expected a change in her income, but because she had to care for Simon at weekends, in school holidays or if he was ill, she was not able to get a job. She had to be available to care for Simon at any time and all times. Mrs. Morris understands that and accepts that her benefit would change when she is not actually caring for Simon.
The problems with receipt of her invalidity care allowance began when Simon was home for an occasional weekend—that is, when weekends either side of one spent at home were spent at school. On those weekends, she was refused invalid care allowance, even though she was receiving attendance allowance. Mrs. Morris felt aggrieved at her treatment, and lodged an appeal against the decision not to pay invalid care allowance. Although the tribunal was sympathetic, it turned down her appeal for payment on those weekends, even though she cared for Simon for up to 66 hours on those occasions.
I have a detailed schedule of the times Mrs. Morris has cared for Simon. In the week commencing Sunday 29 October 1989, Mrs. Morris cared for Simon for 31·5 hours; in the week beginning 12 November 1989, she cared for him for 33·5 hours; in the week beginning 26 November 1989, she cared for him for 32·5 hours, and in the week beginning 3 December 1989, she cared for him for 33·5 hours. Those times were for Fridays and Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays.
On all those occasions, she received two days attendance allowance, but the regulations for invalid care allowance specify that, in a week that runs to Saturday midnight, Mrs. Morris must have cared for Simon for 35 hours. Even if she might have looked after him for 66 hours over the weekend, the fact that it does not amount to 35 hours on either side of Saturday midnight means that she is denied benefit.
This case was originally brought to my attention in October 1990 by Paula Walker, who is a community worker in the advice section of the Church of England Children's Society in Maltby in my constituency. It is a worthwhile project that not only runs activities such as play groups and summer play schemes but gives good advice to my constituents when they are in need. Paula Walker wrote to me and rightly pointed out the inflexibility of the regulations for claiming invalid care allowance.
In November last year, having spoken to Paula Walker and Mrs. Morris, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him to use his discretionary powers to grant Mrs. Morris


invalid care allowance payments on the weekends when Simon is home. The reply that I received from Lord Henley was, as he acknowledged, disappointing. He said:
I am sorry that Mrs. Morris finds that the strict interpretation of the 35-hour rule is causing problems for her, but a provision in the Social Security Act 1975 defines a week as a period of 7 days beginning with midnight between Saturday and Sunday. I do appreciate that caring for a disabled person is not an easy task. It is certainly not our intention to make it difficult for carers to get ICA: we are anxious that as many carers as possible satisfy the qualifying criteria but the regulations do not allow for discretion in this matter.
Like Mrs. Morris, I believe that that bureaucratic trap is nonsense. There is no reason why invalid care allowance cannot be as flexible as attendance allowance.
Will the Minister review the regulations and introduce an element of discretion, so that Mrs. Morris can receive payment of invalid care allowance for the time that she is looking after Simon, which is only what she is entitled to?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in the ballot and on eloquently raising the case of his constituent, Mrs. Morris.
Although the subject of the debate concerns the case of an individual, it raises points of wider interest, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on them. I shall do my best, in the time available, to address the issues that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House and of the Government.
My reply, therefore, will range more widely than the present rules of one benefit in an individual case, although I shall address the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I should describe the background of the Government's wider policy on community care and the social security benefits that are provided for those who need care and say something about our record on that policy. I shall then address myself to the rules that must necessarily frame any benefit scheme, which in a few cases act in ways that appear contrary to the spirit of the scheme.
First, I shall try to fit invalid care allowance into the wider picture of community care. To do so, I must give an indication of the resources that are devoted to helping many people in circumstances similar to those of Mrs. Morris and Simon through the Government's policy on community care and, through social security, to disabled people and the people who care for them.
Community care has been a large and growing part of local and central Government expenditure for more than a decade. Our commitment to it is beyond doubt, and a significant increase in social services expenditure—a 45 per cent. real terms increase between 1979 and 1990—is proof of it. April will see the implementation of phase 1 of the community care policy, as set out in the White Paper "Caring for People". That policy will be implemented in the context of a local authority settlement for 1991–92, which provides personal social services with the best increase in financial provision in 15 years. Only a few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed details of that settlement, which allows for a standard spending assessment for social services of £4,503 million. That represents a cash increase of more than 23 per cent. over the current year.
The Government recognise the contribution of informal carers to community care, as evidenced by the initiative of improving community care services. One of the six key objectives in the White Paper "Caring for People" is
to ensure that service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. Assessment of care needs should always take account of the needs of caring family, friends and neighbours.
The White Paper recognises that carers need help in maintaining their valuable contribution to the spectrum of care and with services that respond flexibly and sensitively to their needs, greater involvement in the development of services, advice and support as well as practical services and improved access to information about facilities.
I know that many carers give generously of their time and energies. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with admiration for his constituent, Mrs Morris, and for her son, Simon. I am sure that other hon. Members present were similarly impressed by Mrs Morris's devotion and commitment and, I was going to say, "simple hard work", but I understand that caring for Simon can never be merely simple.
Before moving from the general to the particular, I must say something about the proper role of personal benefits for people with disabilities and their carers. We have been looking at benefit provision for people with disabilities very carefully recently. The Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, which I am at present involved in steering through Parliament, is a good example of our commitment to developing and extending provision for disabled people living in the community. It takes a fresh look at benefits for a wider range of disabilities than hitherto, just as the community care plans look to providing better services for individuals and their carers on an even wider spectrum than before.
The proposals in our White Paper "The Way Ahead" as a whole give £300 million extra help to 850,000 people. Nearly 300,000 people will gain as a result of the restructuring of attendance allowance for the under-65s and mobility allowance to form the new disability living allowance, at a cost of £240 million by 1993–94.
A new benefit called disability working allowance will go to about 50,000 people, at a gross cost of £85 million, which will be broadly offset by savings elsewhere. These plans are welcomed by those needing care, by those who care for them, by their supporters and by professionals in the field. Indeed, it may be that Mrs. Morris's son Simon will benefit from the improvements that we are making now for disabled people to live in the community.
For the immediate future, we will remember the statement on the uprating of benefits made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in October and the improvements and increases in provision it contained not only for disabled people and their carers, but for handicapped, sick and elderly people who live in the community.
Making the most effective use of our benefit resources is and will continue to be, for this and any responsible Government, a matter of great importance. Our primary aim with invalid care allowance, which is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate, remains that of the Labour Government who introduced the benefit in 1976. It is to provide help in maintaining the income of someone who gives up the opportunity of full-time work to provide regular and substantial care to a severely disabled


person. To achieve that aim, the legislation and regulations that move those policy principles out of the world of good intentions and into the world of action set out the necessary rules.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the principal conditions are that the severely disabled person is someone in respect of whom there is payable attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance; that, to be treated as engaged and regularly and substantially engaged in caring for any week, the carer must show that he is, or is likely to be, engaged and regularly engaged in that caring for at least 35 hours in that caring week; and that the carer is between the normal ages for employment—that is, between 16 and pensionable age—and that he or she is in neither full-time education nor gainful employment. In other words, by caring for 35 hours a week, that carer has given up the possibility of full-time earnings. The provision is not a payment for caring services; it is directed towards the maintenance of income.
I am aware that I have given a somewhat exhaustive analysis of the benefits that we have introduced, but the tests are aimed—

Mr. Barron: On the specific point about the 35 hours, Mrs. Morris receives attendance allowance, so that is clearly more flexible in its application than invalid care allowance. She receives a full day's payment of attendance allowance on a Friday when she receives Simon at home, or collects him from his education establishment, at, say, 3 pm. Surely the simple thing would be to shift the midnight deadline and apply the provision to 35 hours in any seven days. Would not that be one way of helping Mrs. Morris, who does not have the opportunity to go out to work? If Simon fell ill tonight, for example, Mrs. Morris would receive a telephone call and she or her husband Roy would have to go to Huddersfield and bring Simon back home, because he has to be looked after independently of other people.
The Minister should agree to table amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, which is to be considered in the House next Thursday, to shift the tight 12 o'clock deadline. I do not think that any hon. Member would argue against such a proposal. No matter which Labour Government introduced the provisions, no one could possibly want to deny Mrs. Morris that payment for looking after Simon.

Miss Widdecombe: First, let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his belief that it would be possible to table amendments concerning invalid care allowance to the Bill that is currently before Parliament. Invalid care allowance is not dealt with in that Bill, and it therefore could not be amended to influence the allowance. That would require new primary legislation. I do not wish to make a technical point about that tonight, but we could not do that even if we wished to.
The problem of the midnight division is simple. If we put that division somewhere else—on Sunday night or Monday night—people other than Mrs. Morris would have difficulties. They would include those who care for people who may be discharged from hospital on short stay. There is no guarantee of when such patients may come out of hospital; that, too, could fall either side of the line.
I appreciate that the watershed is a problem. However, it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in the year to May 1990, 35,800 invalid care decisions were made. Of those, 270 were referred for further investigation on the basis of the 35 hours criterion and the relationship of the 35 hours to intermittent, as opposed to constant, caring. Of those 270, 120 were eventually unsuccessful. In other words, only 0·34 per cent. of total invalid care allowance applications were unsuccessful. Clearly, considerable sympathy is exercised in trying to assess whether people are eligible.
I must stress that the aim of the benefit is to provide maintenance of income. Suppose that we did what the hon. Gentleman suggested. Suppose that we did not draw a line at all and said that the 35 hours could start anywhere, in any old seven days. If we did that, there would be a danger that we might be talking about someone caring only over the weekend and maintaining a full-time job during the week. The benefit is specifically designed to help people who cannot do that—to help people of earning age who are not in education and who could go out to work and bring in a reasonable income if—and only if—they did not have to care for someone for 35 hours. That is the basis on which we decided on the 35 hours, which is roughly equivalent to a working week. We are trying to measure the working week against the time given for caring.
Hon. Members will be aware, however, that the bar on gainful employment is not absolute. Carers may establish or maintain a link with employment without losing their entitlement to invalid care allowance. They can earn £20 a week, after allowing for reasonable expenses such as fares to work, and those earnings do not affect their entitlement to ICA.
Similarly, a carer can take the opportunity of an educational course for a limited number of hours to remain in contact with the world outside the one of caring. So, although there are strict guidelines about the number of hours and when they are to be counted from, there is also that flexibility built in for people who do intermittent caring and have some free time, for example, during the week to take advantage to a limited extent of earnings or education.
We have, in fact, since its introduction in 1976, widened the scope of ICA to non-relatives of the disabled person in 1981 and to the large number of married women carers in 1986. The net result is that the scheme has grown from 5,000 recipients at a cost of £4 million in 1978–79 to an estimated 130,000 carers costing £229 million in 1990–91. Very recent improvements in the attendance allowance rules are the extensions last year to children under two and for the initial six months of a claim for people with a terminal illness, which will also mean that more carers can qualify for ICA. So I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not trying to restrict or diminish ICA in any way.
As well as extending the range of carers who can benefit from invalid care allowance, we have been able to improve the conditions under which it is paid. Last April, the earnings limit was increased from £12 to £20 a week, and it will increase again this April to £30. As with other benefits, the amount of benefit has been consistently uprated in line with inflation.
Another significant improvement for carers was introduced last year. For carers receiving the income-related benefits, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was pleased to introduce last October a carer


premium of £10 a week, which is expected to help 30,000 people. That too will be uprated in April. Moreover, in October this year, the premium will continue to be paid for up to eight weeks after caring ceases, which helps ex-carers to make the transition back into employment. All these are important developments. We have aimed at flexibility in the provision of services and benefits in so far as it is administratively and financially possible to do so.
The carer does not have to provide care every day of the week but must be caring regularly for at least 35 hours a week. The Government consider that that is a sensible way of measuring the degree of care provided; a degree of commitment which, as I have stressed, deprives the carer of the opportunity of full-time work.

Mr. Barron: I know exactly what the regulations say, but I am still not absolutely clear on this point. Does the Minister think that it was the intention of Parliament when it introduced the 35-hour rule that somebody such as Mrs. Morris, who cannot, because of her circumstances, get employment—even if there were any in my constituency, where it is very thin on the ground anyway—should look after people as severely disabled as Simon, and get other state allowances for doing so, for up to 66 hours a week, which is far beyond the 35-hour test for ICA, and not get this payment? Is the Minister telling me that there is no way, through an appeal or through discretion, to get over this? Is there no flexibility at all about this cut-off at midnight? Does the Minister say that that is the case and that there is no flexibility or likelihood of flexibility with regard to Simon Morris?

Miss Widdecombe: I must stress again that invalid care allowance is not an allowance as payment for caring services. It does not compensate people for caring. It is specifically aimed at compensating people for inability to take full employment. There are people outside the categories who are suggesting—people studying, people who perhaps are already over pension age, and other people—who are not available for employment and who might well be providing that level of care, and they are not eligible.
Certainly it is not the intention of Parliament to deprive people of this allowance where they qualify. It is not a payment for caring services. The question is not how many hours people care but whether they are prevented from taking up full-time employment. The 35 hours a week is the guideline and the definition of that point.
I know that the watershed midway through the weekend, about which the hon. Gentleman complains, is

unfair to Mrs. Morris, and may indeed seem to be unfair, but the purpose of ICA, as I have said several times, is to replace the earnings income of a person who forgoes the opportunity of work in order to care. In that context, the present provision is in line with what for most people is the working week, which is usually Monday to Friday.
Since ICA is to help those who have forgone full-time work by providing substantial and regular care rather than a payment for caring, the present test is not, in my view, unfair. Where the disabled person returns home every or almost every weekend, the total hours of care in any week will generally add up to 35. So carers performing their role regularly but not necessarily every day can be entitled. Where the weekends or holidays at home are intermittent, as in Mrs. Morris's case, the test of regular and substantial care may not be met.
The extent of Mrs. Morris's attention to her son's needs during the hours that he is at home is not at issue. Nevertheless, I do not feel that it is feasible to change the rules to meet her particular circumstances. As I have said, to use a different day would simply mean that we eliminate other people who benefit from the arrangement. There are very likely to be other examples of regular patterns of caring in which ICA is payable at present that would suffer from such a change. It would also remove a common link with other social security benefits.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman may be asking himself whether we have done anything to gauge the extent of the effect of the rule. As I explained, we estimate that decisions that go against the claimant number only a hundred or so in a year, whereas, at present, there are 130,000 recipients of ICA. The extent of the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman would not appear to be great.
In summary, I do not feel that we can change the rules to meet a particular case. The test that we have laid down is consistent with social security benefits, consistent with what most people regard as the start and end of the week, and consistent with our aim of trying to compensate people who forgo full-time employment. It is not a payment for caring services. It is not to compensate somebody for caring. It is specifically aimed at earnings potential. We have devised a fair method. Even the fairest method will throw up anomalies and exceptions. Could I do so, I would not propose to change that method this week or in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Eleven o'clock.